Nothing more than a Legal Hack?

Nothing more than a Legal Hack?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 26, 2007

Comment: Taiwan independence fellow travelers love to gush about Taiwan's "lively/thriving/vibrant" democracy. But as the following editorial in the mass-circulation United Daily News, the largest Chinese language newspaper on Taiwan makes clear, judicial independence is a chimera on today's Pan Green fascist-ruled Taiwan.

The only defect in this otherwise excellent article is its conceptually imprecise, overly generous title, which characterizes Deep Green High Court Public Prosecutor Eric Chen as a "legal hack" or "hack lawyer."

Eric Chen does not deserve such a characterization. Such a characterization is far too flattering. A legal hack is an unimaginative drone who mechanically applies the letter of the law consistently in all cases, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not. A legal hack's failing is not a lack of integrity, but a lack of imagination.

Eric Chen is not a legal hack. Eric Chen lacks the robotic integrity of a legal hack. Eric Chen is a hatchet man. A hatchet man's failing is not a lack of imagination, but a lack of integrity. Eric Chen is a Deep Green hatchet man who applies the law inconsistently from case to case, according to orders from above and the political affiliation of his intended victim.


Public Prosecutor Eric Chen's laughably Orwellian poster reads: "Eric Chen, Conscience. A Solomonic legal judgment. We are willing to wait. We are willing to believe. A pro-democracy activist in his youth, non-partisan, concerned only with right and wrong, unconcerned with political coloration, from start to finish, a public prosecutor concerned only with justice"


Hou Kuan-ren, Eric Chen clone

Nothing more than a Legal Hack?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 26, 2007

Why haven't the Discretionary Fund accounts of the "Four Princes" (Su Tseng-tsang, Frank Hsieh, Annette Lu, and Yu Hsi-kuen, the four political stars of the DPP) been investigated and made public? According to reports, Public Prosecutor Eric Chen said that he was afraid of affecting the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) presidential primaries! But when Eric Chen and Hou Kuan-jen indicted Ma Ying-jeou for alleged misuse of his Discretionary Fund account, didn't they tell us that they didn't care about politics, they didn't care about the presidential election?

Is this the same Eric Chen? Is this the same public prosecutor's office?

That Eric Chen and Hou Kuan-jen of the High Court Public Prosecutor's Office Anti-corruption Center have refused to apply the same standards to the four political stars of the DPP that they have applied to Ma Ying-jeou is the key reason their handling of the Discretionary Fund account case is unfair and unjust.

The legal opinions of public prosecutors in the north and the south clearly differ. If Chen and Hou had prosecuted every one of these political figures, including Ma Ying-jeou and the four political stars of the DPP, and dealt with every one of them in the exact same manner, then out of respect for prosecutorial independence, we would have little to say and would simply leave the outcome to the courts.

The problem is not that Chen and Hou's opinons differ from those of other public prosecutors. The problem is that Chen and Hou dealt with Ma Ying-jeou in a different manner than they did the four political stars of the DPP. This has inflicted irreparable damage to the justice system and cast doubt upon its impartiality.

The failure of Eric Chen and Hou Kuan-jen to investigate and prosecute the four political stars of the DPP, and to apply the same standards to them as they did during their investigation and prosecution of Ma Ying-jeou, constitutes a major legal and political injustice. This is a responsibility Chen and Hou cannot evade. From a legal perspective, the Anti-corruption Center will soon be dissolved. Their cases will be taken over by the Special Investigative Unit. But signs suggest that most prosecutors within the Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office believe that half of the funds within the Discretionary Fund account do not need receipts. Therefore once the Special Investigative Unit takes over, the four major political stars of the DPP, in contrast with Ma Ying-jeou, will be presumed innocent. How can it be that Ma Ying-jeou alone is subject to the harshest interpretation of law? How can Chen and Hou turn a deaf ear to demands from all walks of society that the same standards and protocol must apply in all cases, but instead persist in indicting Ma Ying-jeou alone?

From a political perspective, by invoking the most Draconian standards in their indictment of Ma Ying-jeou, Chen and Hou have put Ma Ying-jeou in the same legal predicament that Chen Shui-bian finds himself in. Not only have Chen and Hou erected endless barriers in the way of Ma Ying-jeou's presidential bid, they have conferred a major political advantage on the four political stars of the DPP, one of whom will be the DPP's next presidential candidate. Is this not a disguised form of intervention in the next presidential election? Hasn't applying different standards to the manner in which one investigates and prosecutes candidates belonging to different political parties already resulted in unfairness in the election process?

Chen and Hou have argued that they will prosecute the four political stars of the DPP case no more than a month after they prosecuted Ma Ying-jeou. They have argued "We don't have enough manpower," and claimed that was the reason the cases didn't go forward simultaneously. Now however, they have admitted that the real reason was they were "afraid it would affect the DPP presidential primaries."

Based on information made public following the Tainan Public Prosecutor's investigation into the Two Hsus case, prosecutors in the north and south knew that they would arrive at different conclusions, even before they announced their findings. The Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office had communicated with Chen and Hou but had been unable to arrive at an agreement with them. Furthermore, Chen and Hou knew perfectly well that the legislature had approved Chen Tsung-ming as prosecutor general, that the Special Investigative Unit was being formed, and that the High Court Public Prosecutor's Anti-corruption Center was being dissolved. The media even reported that Eric Chen was a subject of investigation by the Special Investigative Unit. Chen and Hou knew perfectly well that differences in legal opinion would arise, and that the legal institutions were under reorganization. Therefore, for the sake of fairness, shouldn't they have processed every case according to the same standards and protocol, instead of fixating on a single case? Instead, they hurriedly prosecuted only the Ma Ying-jeou case. The four major political stars of the DPP case, the Weng Yueh-sheng case, and the Chen Tang-shan case, were all set to one side. It is widely assumed that prosecutors as savvy and experienced as Chen and Hou would never stoop so low. Now however, the reason they did stoop so low is known. They were "afraid of the effect on the DPP presidential primaries." But if that was the case, why weren't these same prosecutors afraid of the effect on the KMT presidential primaries while they were busy prosecuting Ma Ying-jeou?

Furthermore, Eric Chen let off Chen Shui-bian off the hook in the State Affairs Confidential Expenses Case, voluntarily declaring that Chen Shui-bian "did not need documentation" for half of his expenses. He publicly insisted that numerous accomplices whom he never investigated, including members of Chen Shui-bian's family, "ought to be forgiven." The contrast between Eric Chen's generous manner then, with the unforgiving manner in which he and Hou Kuan-jen dealt with Ma Ying-jeou afterwards, is the difference between night and day. Doesn't this arouse suspicions that the public prosecutor's handling of the case amounts to a vast conspiracy to frame Ma Ying-jeou, and a flagrant attempt to manipulate the future political landscape?

In their bill of indictment for the Two Hsus case, the Tainan Public Prosecutor said that one who mechanically applies the law is a "legal hack." Some people thought his criticism was overly harsh. If Chen and Hou were merely "legal hacks" they could still be forgiven. What is truly frightening is their premeditated abuse of judicial authority in order to influence the political situation.

Sure enough, Eric Chen's public declarations have confirmed society's worst fears.

Original Chinese below:

只是「法匠」而已嗎？
聯合報社論
2007/03/26

四大天王的特別費案何以尚未偵結公布？據報導，陳瑞仁檢察官說：是怕影響了民進黨的總統初選！但是，陳瑞仁與侯寬仁起訴了馬英九的特別費案，卻說：我們不問政治，也不問總統大選！

這是同一個陳瑞仁嗎？這是檢察一體嗎？

高檢查黑中心檢察官陳瑞仁和侯寬仁未能以同步、同標準處理馬英九和民進黨「四大天王」等案件，是特別費案造成不公不義的核心因素。

南北檢方的法律見解有重大差異，這是無可否認的事實。倘若這種差異只是存在於陳侯二人承辦的「全部案件」（包括馬案及四大天王案等），與其他檢察官承辦的案件之間；則本於對檢察官獨立行使職權的尊重，也只能聽其自然，交由法院決定。

但是，問題在於陳侯二人不僅與其他檢察官辦案意見不同，就陳侯二人承辦的馬案和民進黨「四大天王」等案件，竟也出現不同的處理，致被質疑為無可修補的司法大敗筆。

陳 瑞仁和侯寬仁未以同步、同標準偵辦馬英九和民進黨「四大天王」等案件，在法律和政治兩方面都造成了嚴重的不公不義。這是陳侯二人無從逃逭的責任。在法律方 面，查黑中心即將解散，案件將移特偵組接手；而跡象顯示，南檢關於特別費不要單據的一半採「無罪說」的法律見解，似為多數檢察官的意見，則特偵組接手後， 對民進黨「四大天王」等案就很可能亦採「無罪說」，而與馬案不同。然則，陳侯二人的嚴苛法律見解，豈不是只由馬英九一人承受？而陳侯二人當時又何以置各界 同步、同標準偵結以示公平的呼籲於不顧，堅持非先起訴馬英九一人不可？

在政治方面，陳侯二人以嚴苛標準起訴馬英九，讓馬英九和即將下台的 陳水扁一樣官司纏身，不啻造成馬英九競選總統從起步就面臨困難重重的障礙；同時，陳侯二人卻放過了手中將產生民進黨下屆總統候選人的「四大天王」的同類案 件，相對而言已使「四大天王」居於有利地位，這豈不是以案件偵辦步調的不同，變相地介入了下屆總統選舉，操弄了下屆總統選舉，甚且已經造成選舉不公？

據陳侯二人的說法，馬案和民進黨「四大天王」的案件收案相差一個月，且「人手不足」，所以未同步偵辦；詎料，如今則已承認真正的原因是「怕影響民進黨初選」。

以 南檢偵結二許案之後公開的訊息看來，早在南北兩案都還未偵結前，南檢曾與陳侯二人溝通，但未取得共識；因而，南北檢方法律見解不同，應是陳侯二人早已知悉 之事。再者，隨著檢察總長陳聰明人事案通過，特偵組已在籌組中，高檢查黑中心即將解散，亦為陳侯二人明知之事（媒體曾報導陳瑞仁亦是特偵組徵詢對象之 一）。既然明知法律意見有歧異，機關組織又將調整，則陳侯二人為公平處理起見，理應將手中全部相關案件以同標準、同步偵結，而絕不宜單獨偵結某一案件。但 偏偏只急速偵結馬案，「四大天王」及翁岳生、陳唐山等案卻擱置一旁。一般認為，以陳侯二人的辦案歷練，當不致如此；今答案揭曉，竟是「怕影響民進黨初 選」。那麼，為何偵辦馬英九時，檢察官無此類想法？

再者，陳瑞仁在國務機要費案放過陳水扁自行宣稱「不需單據」的一半，又對許多未追究的 共犯包括陳水扁的家人公開表示「饒了他們吧」；對照當時陳瑞仁寬厚的態度，與後來他和侯寬仁嚴辦馬英九的手法，誠是天差地別。果係如此，豈不令人懷疑檢察 官藉辦案布置了一個天大的政治陰謀，構陷馬英九，赤裸裸地欲影響未來的政局？

南檢在二許案的起訴書中指堆砌概念、機械地適用法律者是「法匠」，有人認為批評過重；陳侯二人若只是「法匠」而已，尚非不能諒宥，唯若是蓄意藉司法權勢來玩弄政治、操弄政局，則貽禍之嚴重，思之令人不寒而慄。

如今，陳瑞仁的說法，卻儼然證實了這樣的社會疑慮。