Will the Ministry of Justice Conduct a Real Investigation? The World is Watching.

Will the Ministry of Justice Conduct a Real Investigation? The World is Watching.
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 2, 2008

The number and magnitude of controversies the Attorney General is embroiled boggles the mind. Public Prosecutor Eric Chen has been assigned to prosecute the State Confidential Expenses Case. Chen said, "The Attorney General should create a police cordon around local prosecutors, shielding them from all political pressure." Eric Chen made this statement early last year. Attorney-General Chen Tsung-ming's "banquet scandals" had just made headlines at the time. First Chen Tsung-ming attended a post New Year's party at the home of former President Chen Shui-bian's personal physician, Huang Fang-yen. Then he attended a dinner party at Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng's house.

One year later, Chen Tsung-ming is again in the spotlight. This time, the problem is far more serious. This time the problem is not merely the appearance of impropriety. The Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office is in charge of prosecuting the Thai workers exploitation case. In the second instance it indicted Public Prosecutor Tsai Kuo-jen. It introduced evidence in court showing that even though during the first instance Chen Tsung-ming lacked evidence, he nevertheless ordered prosecutor Wang Bang-an to indict some people merely to appease public anger. The word handed down was "Attorney-General Chen Tsung-ming wants this taken care of." Tsai Kuo-jen presented evidence suggesting that "the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office engaged in selective prosecution in the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal." During his prosecution of the Thai workers exploitation scandal, Tsai said that the four lower echelon civil servants indicted had neither the intent nor the authority to profit from the case. "Unless of course their superiors shut their eyes and rubber-stamped the documents. If we are serious about prosecuting this case, the person we should be prosecuting is Chen Chu," he said.

Tsai Kuo-jen's remarks touched off a bombshell and led to widespread speculation. First, Tsai Kuo-jen made his accusations publicly, in court. He did not "drop the dime" on others anonymously. During his deposition he even demanded that the court reporter take down his testimony verbatim. He was mentally prepared, knowing his words and deeds would provoke major turmoil. Second, as we all know, the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal has many facets. The Thai worker riots case and the Thai workers exploitation scandal are merely two of them. While comparing the riot to the scandal, Tsai said that the four lower echelon civil servants were scapegoats, victims of selective prosecution. Third, even more importantly, Tsai said, without the slightest hesitation, "If we are serious about prosecuting this case, the person we should be prosecuting is Chen Chu." Everything is linked. Tsai Kuo-jen's remarks touched off a storm of controversy. Not only did Chen Tsung-ming order prosecutors to mollify the public by throwing four fall guys to the wolves. More to the point, what was the purpose of these sacrificial offerings? Who was being protected by these sacrificial offerings? Chen Tsung-ming? Or people behind Chen Tsung-ming even higher up the ladder? Let's not forget that when the Thai workers exploitation scandal first broke, Chen Chu lamented that "powerful people" were behind the scandal. Unfortunately, during the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's course of investigation, no one had the courage or ambition to reveal who these "powerful people" were. The rest is irrelevant.

Chen Tsung-ming said that according to his recollection it was already late in the game when he took over the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit case. But Chen Tsung-ming was Chief Prosecutor of the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office at the time. Whistleblowers had already come forth on the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal and other scandals, long before they made headlines. The Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office had already swept these cases under the rug. Had it not been for the Thai worker riots, the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal would have remained a rock dropped into the ocean. Nor was the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit scandal not an isolated case. A string of such scandals took place in Kaohsiung. Have we forgotten Lo Chien-hsun, who was transferred to the Internal Affairs Department of the Coast Guard Administration? Before leaving the Kaohsiung Public Prosecutor's Office, he turned his case files over to the Special Investigative Unit. He specifically underscored former Kaohsiung Mayor Frank Hsieh's involvement in the scandals. The Democratic Progressive Party was holding its presidential primaries at the time. Tsai's expose created quite a stir. In the end however, it turned out to be yet another case of "Plenty of thunder but little rain." We still don't know whether the Special Investigative Unit has any intention of proceeding with the case.

When Tsai Kuo-jen touched off his bombshell, Chen Tsung-ming responded by indicting four scapegoats. Tsai refused to speak again. Chen Tsung-ming on the other hand, was suddenly in a panic, and wanted Wang Bang-an report to him, to declare that he never issued any such orders to Tsai Kuo-jen. Is Chen Tsung-ming serious? How many lower echelon prosecutors have the guts to submit a report to the Attorney General, saying "Yes, you were the one who phoned me, ordering me to indict so and so?" Because of this case, Wang Ching-feng, the new Minister of Justice, found herself under enormous pressure during her first interpolation by the Legislative Yuan. She was saddened that this case had utterly discredited public prosecutors in the eyes of the public. She immediately ordered the formation of an ad hoc group to investigate and produce a report within two weeks, no punches pulled.

Only last year, in response to Chen Tsung-ming's banquets scandal, the Ministry of Justice made a big show of "investigating." Many have forgotten that at the time Huang Fang-yen said he and Chen Tsung-ming were quite familiar with each other. Chen Tsung-ming on the other hand said he and Huang Fang-yen were not at all familiar with each other. Did anyone bother to ask why Chen Tsung-ming would attend a post New Years party at the home of someone with whom he was not at all familiar? His dinner party with Wang Jin-pyng was even more revealing. Among the guests were business community "witnesses" to the State Security Expense Accounts scandals. So were five other public prosecutors. So were several independent legislators who were entangled in lawsuits. Eric Chen said "Even assuming you did not know in advance that these people would be present, as soon as you walked in the door and saw them you should have had the determination and courage to turn around and walk out!" The Prosecutorial Reform Commission said that if it were to happen again, it would not rule out defying Chen Tsung-ming's orders and promoting mechanisms for the Attorney-General's withdrawal. Because prosecutors have been unable to legally specify that prosecutors may not wine and dine individuals involved in their cases, this case will probably go nowhere.

Tsai Kuo-jen dropped a bombshell when he accused Chen Tsung-ming of engaging in selective prosecutions. Should this be considered a case of "Here we go again?" Will the Ministry of Justice report, like past reports, evade real problems by fixating on trivialities? Will it engage in cover ups? Wang Ching-feng is watching. The entire nation is watching. They see public prosecutors who lack the determination and courage to turn around and walk away from corrupt officials and businessmen. Just how many public prosecutors retain their spirit of independence? Just how many public prosecutors have the guts to "Just say no!" to special interests?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.06.02
這回法務部要怎麼調查？舉國都在看
中時社論

　真的難以想像，為什麼檢察總長的爭議可以這麼大、這麼多！國務機要費承辦檢察官陳瑞仁曾經說過一句話：「檢察總長應該為基層檢察官拉起一道封鎖線，讓所有的政治勢力不得其門而入。」陳瑞仁說這話是去年上半年，檢察總長陳聰明才鬧出夜宴風波，先是到前總統陳水扁御醫黃芳彥家中喝春酒，再是到立法院長王金平官邸聚餐。

　時隔一年，陳聰明又出鋒頭了，這一回，遠遠比吃頓飯要嚴重得多。雄檢承辦引進泰勞涉嫌圖利案的二審公訴檢察官蔡國禎，竟在庭上引據承辦泰勞暴動案的一審檢察官王邦安的說法指陳，雖然證據不足，但是為平息輿論，要找幾個人起訴，「這是陳聰明檢察長的意思。」蔡國禎並據此申論「高雄地檢署對於高捷案，有很多都是選擇性辦案」，在他自己擔任公訴檢察官的引進泰勞案，他則說，被起訴的四名基層公務員，既無圖利犯意，更無夠大的權限，「除非他們的長官都瞎了眼睛蓋章，真要偵辦，應該要辦陳菊。」

　蔡國禎一番話，立刻引爆爭議，造成各方聯想。第一，蔡國禎是在庭上公開指控，而非私下不具名爆料，庭訊陳述時，他甚至要書記官逐字逐句紀錄在卷，對自己言行會造成多大風暴，顯早有心理準備；第二，眾所周知，高捷案所涉甚多，泰勞暴動案和引進泰勞圖利案，只是其中兩樁，蔡以暴動案比擬圖利案，認為四名基層公務員是「選擇性辦案」下的犧牲品；第三，更重要的，蔡毫不隱諱地說「真要偵辦，應該要辦陳菊。」環環相扣，蔡國禎一番話掀起的風波，不只是陳聰明要求承辦檢察官為平息輿論而起訴；更嚴重的，蔡口中「選擇性辦案」到底犧牲了誰？又保護了誰？主導選擇性辦案的是陳聰明？還是陳聰明背後還有高人？不要忘了，泰勞案爆發之初，陳菊曾感慨說到「有力人士」，遺憾的是，雄檢偵辦過程中，從沒有勇氣或企圖心了解「有力人士」到底是誰？遑論其他。

　陳聰明回溯高捷案澄清自己接手時間很晚，但是，陳聰明時任高雄地檢署檢察長則是不爭的事實；而高捷諸多弊案，早在爆發前即經人檢舉，卻也是雄檢偵辦且結案在先。要不是鬧出了泰勞暴動案，高捷諸案早就石沉大海。不只高捷案，發生在高雄的若干政治獻金案，亦復如是，如果大家不健忘的話，應該還記得調任海巡署政風室的羅建勛檢察官，在離開雄檢前移交卷案到特偵組，還特別點名前高雄市長謝長廷在該案中扮演的角色，時值總統大選民進黨內初選之際，鬧得沸沸揚揚，同樣不了了之，迄今不知特偵組到底辦是不辦？

　蔡國禎引爆陳聰明指導起訴這顆大炸彈後，不肯再對外說話，倒是陳聰明急乎乎地要王邦安上了報告給他，說明自己並未對蔡國禎說過類似的話。這不是開玩笑嗎？哪個基層檢察官有這個熊心豹子膽，上份報告給直屬檢察總長說：沒錯，就是你打電話給我，要我起訴一、二人？為了此案，新任法務部長王清峰首次列席立法院備詢就飽受壓力，她難過地說，此案讓檢察官形象「跌到谷底」，並立刻指示組成專案小組調查，要在兩周內交出報告，絕不寬貸！

　也不過就在去年，為了陳聰明夜宴，法務部亦曾大張旗鼓「調查」，很多人都忘了，當時，黃芳彥說和陳聰明很熟，陳聰明卻說和黃芳彥不熟，沒人追究陳聰明到不熟的人家中喝春酒幹嘛？至於與王金平聚餐扯得就更多了，不但有國務費案中列為發票報銷「證人」的商界人士，還有其他五名檢察官，以及猶有官司纏身的無黨籍立委。雖然，陳瑞仁還是說了句極其沉痛的話「即使你事前不知有這些人在座，進門看到這些人，也應該有掉頭就走的決心和勇氣！」檢改會甚至說，如果再發生，不排除抵制陳聰明，並推動檢察總長退場機制。或許因為法無明定檢察官不能吃飯應酬，此案不了了之。

　蔡國禎引爆的陳聰明選擇性起訴，算不算是「再發生」？法務部這次調查報告會不會像過去的調查報告般，蜻蜓點水，避重就輕，甚至官官相護？不只王清峰在看，舉國都張大了眼睛在看：見官商卻無決心與勇氣掉調頭就走的檢察系統，到底還剩下幾分獨立的精神，不為特權服務！