Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007


High Court Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting, purged for refusing to cover up rampant Chen Shui-bian regime corruption

Comment: In "The Myth of Checks and Balances" I wrote:

In theory, a democratically elected president is merely the highest ranking official in one of three or more coequal branches of government, the executive branch.

In reality, in any monopolistic state with a presidential system, the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp. Real world experience has demonstrated that over time, the executive invariably co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature.

In theory, the coequal branches of government provide "checks and balances" upon each other, preventing them from ganging up upon the individual citizens they have sworn to protect and serve.

In reality, because the executive is the branch that has been delegated the power to "execute" policy (pun intended), it invariably usurps any and all powers delegated to the other branches of a monopolistic state. Real world experience has shown that "limited government" inevitably morphs into unlimited government, and that the executive is always the branch that winds up monopolizing that limitless power. It makes no difference whether the executive was popularly elected, self-appointed, or hereditary.

When this happens, "champions of democracy" assure us that what is needed is "reform."

I disagree.

Democracies do not need to be reformed. They need to be replaced. Democracies and other monopolistic states degenerate into dictatorships because they are structurally defective therefore impervious to reform from their very inception.

Democracies and other monopolistic states must be replaced with non-monopolistic political arrangements that refrain from granting any single political entity an exclusive franchise on the use of force within any given jurisdiction.

Unless by some miracle the Chinese people on Taiwan forsake "democracy" and adopt market anarchism, the answer to the question "Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting" will remain: "Nobody."

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007

The Ministry of Justice, confronted with a boycott by all nine elected members of the Personnel Review Committee, has rammed through the reassignment of 26 chief prosecutors, the most controversial of which is the Hsieh Wen-ting case.

The elected members of the Personnel Review Committee issued a powerful statement to the effect that "Public prosecutors categorically must not retreat before such flagrant manipulation of the justice system by political forces. Otherwise the authority of the Public Prosecutor's Office will become subordinate to the authority of the Executive branch, and public prosecutors will become political goons. The justice system categorically must not bow to political power." The outrage they felt was clear from their language.

What we are witnessing is a war of annihilation and extermination, waged by malevolent political forces against the spirit of an independent judiciary. If Hsieh Wen-ting is forced out of office in this manner by a malevolent political authority, what will become of our legal system? How will administrators of justice enforce the law?

Over the past year, the fate of Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting opf the High Court Prosecutor's Office has hinged on the outcome of a savage struggle between politics and law enforcement. Last April, the legislature vetoed Hsieh Wen-ting's appointment as Prosecutor General. The reason was the opposition parties lacked confidence in Hsieh Wen-ting's managerial style. One year later, it turns out that because Hsieh Wen-ting resisted pressure to sweep Chen Shui-bian's State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal under the rug, he was summarily replaced.

According to reports, during the State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal, political figures at the highest levels attempted through a variety of channels to discover from Hsieh Wen-ting's own statements, the direction and progress of his investigation, but received no response. Word also spread that following the indictment in this case, political figures at the highest levels hoped that Hsieh Wen-ting would order public prosecutors to withdraw the charges, but Hsieh Wen-ting "resisted the will of those above him." Case prosecutor Eric Chen confirmed that Hsieh Wen-ting said that "The pressure stops here." Hsieh wanted them to be free from political considerations and to handle matters according to the letter and spirit of the law.

After all is said and done, one must admit that Hsieh Wen-ting has upheld his role as an administrator of justice. Meanwhile, looking back at the tumultuous changes over the past year, Chen Tsung-ming's ascent to the throne of Prosecutor General due to People First Party collusion, represents shameful self-abasement. Scandals erupted again and again, and the Ministry of Justice covered them up again and again. Hsieh Wen-ting on the other hand, just missed becoming Prosecutor General because he "resisted the will of those above him." His appointment to Prosecutor General was unexpectedly rejected. Is this not a political and judicial farce that leaves one unsure whether to laugh or to cry?

Hsieh Wen-ting's replacement, at such a time and under such circumstances, cannot help but arouse suspicions. No wonder an atmosphere of indignation permeates prosecutorial circles. If the rumor that Hsieh Wen-ting was replaced because he "resisted the will of those above him" is true, then this is nothing less than the undisguised purging of political dissent from judicial circles.
Those in power have openly declared war upon the judicial world. "Obey me and live, Defy me and die!" "Refuse to cover up my corruption, and I will have your job!" Is this not a war of annihilation and extermination against justice?

Yesterday before the Examining Committee, elected committee members suggested that as long as the facts of the case remained in doubt, meetings should be suspended. But the Ministry of Justice ignored Examining Committee rules requiring a 2/3 quorum and held an illegal meeting which all nine elected committee members refused to attend.

In a single breath, the Ministry of Justice transferred 26 chief prosecutors, inspiring Committee Member Chen Chih-ming to question the urgent need to transfer personnel who were just now learning their jobs. On the Prosecutorial Reform Committee's offical website, Chen Chih-ming pointed out that Minister of Justice Shih Mao-ling's "abnormal behavior" might have been motivated by either selfish concerns or year end election concerns, in order to manipulate the vote-buying investigation process. Chen Chih-ming said that the situation was worse than imagined. If that is indeed the case, it amounts to a political purge of individuals of integrity within the justice system.

Chen Chih-ming considered this highly unethical. He pointed out that the motive for making such major reassignments was entirely selfish. If such selfish behavior set a negative precedent, it would undermine chief prosecutors who respected the law.

This is a ruling regime utterly devoid of moral virtue, which now hopes by means of its hold on political power to purge prosecutorial circles of any last vestiges of integrity, in order to advance its private interests. Can the nation and the justice system do nothing but look on as a ruling regime devoid of moral virtue practices a policy of "Obey me and live, defy me and die," and creates a justice system utterly devoid of moral virtue?

Perhaps due to strong protests from elected committee members, yesterday's roster contained hints of compromise. But Chen Tsung-ming sits securely on his throne. Hsieh Wen-ting meanwhile, leaves office on a bittersweet note. This reflects perfectly the current state of the justice system. The laws of god, the laws of man, public sentiment. Who can demand that Chen Tsung-ming step down? And who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Original Chinese below:

誰能救得了謝文定？
聯合報社論
2007/03/30

在全體九名「票選委員」拒絕出席人事審查會的情勢下，法務部橫柴入灶，強渡關山通過了二十六名檢察長的調動案，其中又以謝文定遭撤換最滋爭議。

「票選委員」發表強烈聲明：「政治力這般赤裸裸操弄司法，檢察體系絕不能退縮，否則檢察權就淪為行政權的附庸，檢察官以後就成為政治打手，司法在政治力面前絕不低頭。」痛心疾首，溢於言表。

目前的情勢，儼然是政治惡勢力對司法獨立精神的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰。謝文定若就這樣被政權暴力逼下了台，司法的正義如何維持？司法人的風骨何以為繼？

一年之間，高檢署檢察長謝文定的人生際遇，橫逆乖舛，不啻正是一部政治與司法爛纏惡鬥的荒謬劇。去年四月，謝文定的檢察總長人事案在朝野猜忌中被立院否決，原因是在野黨對謝文定的操持不具信心；詎料，一年後的今天，竟傳出謝文定因抗拒當局對國務機要費案之「關心」，而遭撤換的惡運。

據報導，政治高層在國務機要費案偵辦期間，透過各種管道欲從謝文定口中探知偵辦進度及方向，未獲謝的回應；甚且傳出至該案起訴後，又欲透過謝文定命檢方撤回起訴，謝文定亦「抗拒上意」。承辦檢察官陳瑞仁則證實，謝文定曾告以「各種壓力到我這裡為止」，要他們不要有任何政治思考，一切依法辦理。

謝文定畢竟維持了他的司法人風範。然而，回顧這一年來的翻騰變化，陳聰明因親民黨放水而坐上檢察總長的寶座，失格失態，醜聞頻傳，但法務部再三加以包庇迴護；與檢察總長失之交臂的謝文定，卻傳出因堅持原則，「抗拒上意」，其檢察長的職位竟將被罷黜。這豈不是一齣令人啼笑皆非的政治與司法交纏的荒謬劇？

謝文定在此時此際遭撤換，不能不令人疑竇叢生；也難怪在檢察官之間，一股不平之氣已是沸沸揚揚。倘若謝文定因「抗拒上意」而遭撤換的傳言屬實，則這不啻是當權者以赤裸裸的政權暴力在司法界誅除異己的行動。當權者不啻公然向司法界宣戰：「順我者生，逆我者死！」「你不包庇我的貪腐，我就叫你在司法界無以立足！」這難道不是對司法清流的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰？

昨日審查會前，「票選委員」主張在真相未明下應暫停開會；但法務部竟違反審查會必須有三分之二出席始能開會的規範，強行開會，九名「票選委員」遂全體拒絕出席。

法務部這次一口氣調動二十六名檢察長，被檢審委員陳誌銘公開質疑，在那些檢察長工作進入純熟之際豈有換人的急迫性？陳誌銘在檢改會網站上直率指出，法務部長施茂林「此舉很不尋常」，可能是廣植親私，亦可能是為年底選戰布樁，以操縱查賄動作。陳誌銘稱，事態比想像的還要「兇惡」；倘係如此，這豈不形同是執政當局對司法清流的一場政治整肅？

陳誌銘甚至認為：「這是一件很缺德的事！」他指出，大調動的動機很「自私」，若因這些自私的動機開了惡例，將使具司法屬性的檢察長地位變得更不穩定，所以「是一件很缺德的事」！

這是一個缺德的統治集團，現在又欲憑其政權暴力，在檢察界誅除清流，廣布親私；難道全體國人，及全體司法人、全體檢察官，真的只能眼睜睜地看著這個缺德的統治集團，欲用「順我生、逆我死」的殘暴手段，來炮製一個「缺德」的司法體系嗎？

或許是由於「票選委員」的強烈抗議，昨日通過的名單已有折衷意味。但是，陳聰明穩居大位，謝文定反而悲壯去職；這正是當前司法境況的寫照。天理、國法、民心，誰能叫陳聰明下台？又誰能救得了謝文定？