The following case, which I experienced as an interpreter, illustrates that many issues in Taiwan’s legal system originate from law enforcement personnel. The problem stems not so much from their education and training, but their personal attitude — characterized by excessive self-confidence paired with a lack of accountability.
One day at 10:30am, I was called to a police station in New Taipei City for an emergency. I arrived an hour later. A man was tied to a chair, having been arrested at the airport due to an outstanding arrest warrant.
It quickly became apparent that the case was related to a traffic incident 18 months earlier, in which the other party had sustained only minor scratches.
The man said he had reached a settlement, under which the other party was supposed to withdraw the criminal complaint.
The helpful police officers made phone calls, while the man’s girlfriend contacted the insurance company and the other party. Everyone was cooperative — well, almost everyone.
It emerged that the prosecution had failed to remove the already revoked arrest warrant from their system, and the man still had to be taken to the prosecutors’ office in New Taipei City for further formalities. The prosecutor in Kaohsiung, who had apparently made an error, said he would call back at 2pm — but seemingly prioritized a nap and lunch instead.
However, at the prosecutors’ office, the atmosphere changed, and the officials became harsher. The detainee was placed in a cell for dangerous criminals, and forced to remove his shoes and belt. Requests to waive this degrading procedure were denied, with officials citing vague regulations.
Despite everything being ready, the process dragged on until 4pm, and the detainee was subjected to the humiliating procedure of fingerprinting. The police officer handed him a printed document with the latest decision and advised him to carry it at all times — just in case he got arrested again.
Three weeks later, I received a payment of about NT$1,100 for 1.5 hours of travel and about 5 hours of interpreting. The prosecutor had decided that my assistance had not been truly necessary and therefore could only be partially compensated.
The issuance of a warrant for what was allegedly a minor case of bodily harm already suggests discrimination against a foreigner. Even more concerning, the prosecution displayed no awareness of any wrongdoing in unlawfully detaining someone.
Even as it became increasingly evident that the man was being held without justification, the prosecutor remained indifferent. To him, it was a trivial issue — despite the fact that legally, it constituted unlawful detention. A prosecutor prioritizing lunch over someone’s freedom would face criminal charges elsewhere.
Beyond the emotional and legal damage caused, the prosecutor’s negligence also incurred immense administrative costs. Several staff members from the police and prosecutors’ offices in New Taipei and Kaohsiung were engaged in the proceedings for hours.
The entire process reflects an emotional immaturity on the part of the prosecutor, who demonstrated neither the professionalism nor the personal competence required for their role.
The only real concern for the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors’ Office seemed to be ensuring that the interpreter would not be compensated for all of his time.
The fee for an interpreter is already very low, just NT$500 per hour (excluding travel expenses). However, the attempt to withhold even that token payment was simply disgraceful.
An interpreter with legal expertise is essential. Chinese and German are difficult to translate, and some legal terms have no direct equivalents. A detainee under stress often gives unclear answers, making it necessary for the interpreter to ask follow-up questions and provide clarification. It is challenging to offer support while remaining neutral.
Translation agencies complain they cannot find people for court and police interpreting. I cannot imagine why.
Claudius Petzold is a counsel at Washington Group and Associates.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS