Judicial Independence Should Not Be Trampled by Dirty Politics
China Times Editorial, December 16, 2022
During the Hsinchu mayoral election, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) did not want to lose, used all means to attack the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) candidate Kao Hung-an but still lost. After losing the election, the DPP did not admit defeat, and many suspect that the DPP is using judicial means to attack the mayor-elect and will not give up until the party takes back the elected office.
This assumption is not ungrounded. Since the DPP achieved full power, the dirty politics has stretched everywhere, leaving almost no clean areas in all sectors of the country. The repeated trampling of democratic institutions and moral principles shows that the DPP will do whatever it takes to achieve its goals, even to the extreme. Hsinchu City is a fortress that the DPP aspires to protect, and it is also the political territory of Legislator Ker Chien-ming, whip of the DPP caucus of the Legislative Yuan, so the election must be won. However, after the plagiarism involving former Mayor Lin Chih-chien’s thesis paper was exposed, and Kao began to lead the polls during the campaign, the DPP bombarded her with all its might, attacking Kao with fire from all directions. Certainly, candidates should be examined, but the ruling party has used its power to order the relevant units to cooperate fully, whether it is a government agency or foundation. Even with such comprehensive mobilization and relentless search for Kao’s materials since her school days, the DPP still could not thwart Kao’s election. Defeat was simply shameful for the DPP and Ker. But the DPP certainly would not give up and stop there.
Selective handling of cases does not conform to the principle of proportionality. Shortly after the election, the inspection units and prosecutor offices openly launched a series of investigation over alleged corruption and forgery cases involving Kao. Regardless of whether it was performed according to the script written by the DPP, it at least followed the will of the DPP. Prosecutors claimed that they had received anonymous reports from "whistleblowers" prior to the election, accusing Kao and her former assistant Lee Chung-ting money laundering, breach of trust, and misleading public servants. The alleged reports also target Lee who work part-time for the Yonglin Foundation but repeatedly received assistant fees. It is tantamount to fraudulently receiving salaries from the public department and private sector. Based on such reports, the prosecutors investigated with the utmost strength after the election. A few days ago, the investigation units in multiple groups raided and searched Kao’s legislative office, residence, and parents’ residence. Kao, currently a TPP legislator, is suspected of corruption and forgery and is now temporarily released on bail.
Public officials suspected of corruption or forgery of documents, regardless of their party affiliation, should be prosecuted according to the law. Accordingly, the investigation agencies cannot blatantly and selectively handle cases, and the ruling party should not direct the investigation agencies to handle certain cases. This time, the investigation is so aggressive that people from all walks of life believe that it involves politics and there are dirty politics behind it. Otherwise, many corruption cases including the procurement of Medigen coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine and safety issues with the reconstructed Hsinchu Baseball Stadium, should be prosecuted. Only because the DPP is involved explains why prosecutors are remaining silent but making big moves on Kao’s corruption allegations. It makes people suspicious of the authorities’ intention to "confiscate" the results of the Hsinchu mayoral election. As Mayor Ko Wen-je of Taipei stated, the judiciary should be independent and not a political tool of the state. For example, why weren’t controversial public construction cases like the baseball stadium costing NT$1.2 billion (about US$39 million) and Kuanpu Elementary School costing NT$1.6 billion (about US$52 million) be scrutinized, but Kao’s assistant salaries amounting to NT$600,000 (about US$19,482) thoroughly investigated?
As far as the employment of publicly funded assistants of representatives of public opinion is concerned, it is an employment contract in private law. As long as there is indeed a payable employment relationship between the committee members and the registered assistants, which means that the assistants actually perform their duties, they can be reported in accordance with the Organization Act of the Legislative Yuan. More specifically, the remittance of salaries and bonuses is based upon the type of assistance and term of employment. As for the content of the work performed by each assistant and the amount of labor they serve, it is a matter up to the committee members to decide and control. It is difficult to clearly judge whether corruption is involved. For this reason, in the past, there was no agreement on whether to prosecute such cases or whether to convict the defendants. It thus leaves room for the ruling authorities to do something about it. The most impressive cases are the indictment of Legislator Wu Cheng-tien and conviction of Taipei City Councilor Pan Huai-chung, both of whom are members of the New Party. Observers discuss whether their prosecution is related to their party background.
Everyone is equal before the law and should not be treated differently because of party identification. The judiciary is independent in adjudication and free from political interference. This is the basic tenet and final line of defense in a democracy. There is no room for judicial authorities to overstep, let alone act with external intervention. The judiciary has the right to investigate whether Kao was involved in the abuse of assistant fees. However, during the election, the ruling party devoted all its efforts to mobilizing the Institute for Information Industry (III), Legislative Yuan, and prosecution to beat Kao. All these moves were so clear and obvious. Now, it is investigating and handling this case with such big moves to. This is not inconsistent with the principles of judicial independence and proportionality, attracting public backlash and criticism.
This case has attracted the attention of all parties because it involves judicial credibility. Former DPP Chairman Shih Ming-teh specifically reminded us to "step by step" and "step by step with caution." This is the minimum procedural requirement, and more importantly, the spirit of judicial independence must be fully presented. The performance of the DPP administration has often crossed the line, which makes people more worried about whether the winners of the election who "offend" the ruling party like Kao will get a fair trial. There are still some cases under trial in this election. Since most of them are inseparable from the DPP, they should be handled in accordance with the principles of independence and fairness, and no political pressure should be exerted. Otherwise, Taiwan's already crumbling judicial independence will be destroyed again. If so, the foundations of democracy will also be ravaged.
From: https://www.chinatimes.com/amp/opinion/20221216003453-262101