Prosecution Also Suffered While Destroying Ko's Character
United Daily News Editorial, December 28, 2024
After four months of intense investigation, the 100,000-word indictment by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office details facts underlying charges against Chairman Ko Wen-je of the Taiwan People's Party (TPP) and seeks a heavy sentence of 28.5 years. While the gravity of the requested sentence did not shock the public, the indictment not only ruined Ko's character but also made the prosecution suffer.
From the outset, investigation by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office into Ko's conduct in the Living Mall and political donations cases was marred by doubts over procedural fairness. News sources friendly to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) "exclusively" covered the case, and it was later confirmed that much of their information came from the investigation itself. The finding led to mockery that the media acted as "mirror prosecutors." Even after leaks were discovered, the prosecution took no serious action to stop them.
After Ko's detention, the prosecution continued to summon witnesses and suspects, with media outlets again receiving real-time updates on the investigation. Key TPP figures including founding member Chu Hui-jung and spokeswoman Wu Yi-hsuan openly complained about information leaks to the media, revealing how the prosecution failed to maintain confidentiality.
The indictment further exposes self-destruction by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. Although it alleges that Ko received a bribe of NT$15 million (about US$456,000), the prosecution could not clearly establish the time or location of the alleged transaction, instead disclosing irrelevant personal details such as Ko's family photos and documents unrelated to the case. These included bizarre content like a folder titled "Emperor.doc" with Ko's self-comparisons to Yongzheng Emperor of the Qing Dynasty. The prosecution additionally highlights a scene showing Ko receiving a political donation while cycling in the Mayor's office but fails to provide solid financial evidence.
Legal experts criticized the Taipei District Prosecutors Office for publicizing irrelevant personal information, which paint a complete picture of Ko's relationships and interactions. Many question why such unrelated material was presented in the indictment and whether the prosecution's moves amounted to a form of character assassination. The fact that the prosecution could not trace financial transactions only worsened perceptions of a politically motivated case.
Public trust in the Taipei District Prosecutors Office is at an all-time low. According to a recent poll, nearly 40 percent question the fairness of the investigation, with many expressing doubts about the evidence of corruption and criticizing the prosecution for lack of transparency. Notwithstanding doubts about Ko, significant public opinion is skeptical about the prosecution itself.
Even in southern Taiwan which is traditionally a DPP stronghold, questions arose about the lack of evidence regarding the alleged bribe. A DPP legislator representing southern Taiwan reported widespread concern among voters over the prosecution's failure to establish a clear money trail.
Ultimately, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office's highly visible investigation, supported by media leaks, has had the unintended effect of de-sensitizing the public. As reporting by weekly magazines continue to "mirror" findings by the prosecution, many have become numb to the scandal. And when the indictment was finally released without concrete evidence of bribery, the public reacted with indifference. This outcome might be far from what manipulators behind the scenes had anticipated.