國際學者給法務部長王清峰的第二封信

【重點摘要】
在過去20年裡，台灣面臨著困難的國際局勢。讓台灣在世界上民主國家間有重要地位的原因是台灣的民主化。我們擔心目前台灣的司法程序被用來危及台灣民主化，並危害台灣在國際間得到的善意。
總之，我們對台灣司法的腐蝕深感不安，並表示衷心希望並期待貴國政府將保持公平和公正的司法，並迅速糾正目前的不公正。

親愛的王部長：

在給台北時報11月25日出版的一封公開信，您回應了我們的聯合聲明中，關於台灣司法腐蝕的部分。我們非常感謝您認知我們關切的誠意，並對於迅速收到認真的答覆表達感謝。

根據我們現有的資料，我們仍然擔心檢察官在運用現有的法律權威所作的選擇，並強烈認為有必要進行改革。請允許我們強調一些具體的要點：

1. 「預防性拘留」的程序：此程序顯然是針對可能逃離該國的嚴重刑事案件嫌疑犯。Jerome Cohen教授在11月13日的南華早報指出：「那應該很少施行」。然而在過去幾個星期裡，它已被全面使用，僅被用於對現任和前任民進黨政府的成員。這使 人嚴重懷疑司法系統的公正。我們還要指出，所涉及的人被關押在悲慘的情況下，他們甚至不被允許見親人。

2 .您的公開信中包含的論點，當目前和前民進黨政府官員被收押時，「都被告知已對他們提出的指控」，這是完全不正確的。當他們被收押時，他們都受到長時間的 審訊─在一些情況下長達20小時─這被稱為「釣魚」，這並不能代表正式的起訴，沒有任何法律意義。在大多數情況下，檢察機關已收集幾個月的資訊，如果他們 確實有足夠的證據證明不法行為，他們應該正式起訴，讓他們出席嚴格公正的法院。這將是民主社會可取的法治程序。

3. 你的公開信還指出，涉案人有「與他們的律師溝通尋求法律援助的權利和能力」，卻忽略不提，在所有情況下，被收押的人與律師的討論被錄音和錄影，而警衛會做 紀錄。這一訊息立即轉發給各自的檢察官。我們不需要指出這是嚴重侵犯關於律師與當事人間之通訊保密特權的國際準則，並製造辯護困難的問題。

4 . 在洩漏給新聞界的這個問題，您的信中說，根據刑事訴訟法，正在進行的調查資料只能通過檢察官辦公室的發言人披露，未經授權的披露應受刑事追訴。事實是，在 過去幾週裡，媒體充滿了應該只有檢察官知道，關於正在進行的調查的資訊。我們可以指出一個例子，但還有許多其他例子：
在11月3日前外交部長陳唐山被詢問的幾個小時後，台灣的蘋果日報發表了一篇文章說：「因陳博士與本案有關檢察官考慮起訴」。
這個違反秘密調查原則的問題也被士林地方法院法官洪英花提出了，她在自由時報11月17日的文章強烈批評貴部的現狀和遵循的程序。

我們也可以提到的是，非常奇怪，沒有針對洩密的檢察官採取任何措施，而我們剛剛獲悉，法務部目前正因「洩露」的訊息給新聞界，採取措施對付前總統陳水扁的 律師鄭文龍先生。該部正式發出了請求，要求台北地方法院檢察官辦公室進行調查和起訴，並對台灣律師協會發出了正式要求，要求該協會審查此案，看看是否應該 吊銷他的執照。

根據我們的理解，鄭先生提出的發言是有關前總統陳水扁對台灣的局勢和未來的看法，並表達了愛他的妻子，但沒有任何與他案件相關的訊息。我們希望您瞭解到，如果貴部繼續沿著這些路線下去，將被視為司法系統強烈政治偏見的直接確認。

5. 你的來信說，台灣的司法系統很容易受到政治操縱是不正確的。如果是這種情況，怎麼能解釋在過去幾週裡，只有民進黨的官員被拘留，並給予不人道的待遇，如手銬和漫長的審問，而明顯貪污案件的國民黨成員─包括立法院─檢察官完全不碰，甚至是用冗長的司法程序拖延？

我們也表示Cohen教授和李念祖律師的關切，他們在中國時報11月9日社論表達對預防性拘留的深切關注。該社論，李律師稱讚陳瑞仁檢察官的發言，他是專案小組成員之一，他說檢察官辦公室應「避免出現僅針對一個特定政治團體的行為」。

事實上，特偵組是民進黨當局成立，或檢察總長是被前總統陳水扁提名的並不是這裡的問題。現在的問題是，現行的制度正以非常偏袒的方式來運用。

我們也可以補充，事實上你自己都公開討論一些造成嚴重不公平情況的內容，並破壞了基本的格言，一個人在法院證明有罪之前應被視為無辜。在目前情況下很難看到涉案人員-包括陳前總統-如何能有一個公正的審判。

6. 最後，一份你在信中解釋來「背書」台灣司法系統和遵循的程序的美國國務院聲明。應該指出的是，在國際外交語言，「我們預期所有事情」這句術語的意思是「我們很擔心，並會仔細關注」。

在過去20年裡，台灣面臨著困難的國際局勢。讓台灣在世界上民主國家間有重要地位的原因是台灣的民主化。我們擔心目前台灣的司法程序被用來危及台灣民主化，並危害台灣在國際間得到的善意。

總之，我們對台灣司法的腐蝕深感不安，並表示衷心希望並期待貴國政府將保持公平和公正的司法，並迅速糾正目前的不公正。11月20日總部設在倫敦的經濟學 家社論指出，「台灣渴望正義」，我們也希望貴國政府願意提出司法改革，將台灣推向一個完全公平和公正的司法系統，獲得世界各地的民主國家尊重和敬佩。

（按字母順序排列）

前美國在台協會主席白樂崎

華盛頓FAPA Coen Blaauw

美國東方學會東亞區理事長David Prager Branner

《即將崩潰的中國 》作者Gordon G. Chang

邁阿密大學教授June Teufel Dreyer

威斯康辛大學教授Edward Friedman

蒙納許大學教授Bruce Jacobs

Richard C. Kagan

翰林大學教授 Emeritus,

國立台北大學副教授祁夫潤 Jerome F. Keating

美國南加大國際關係學院副教授Daniel Lynch

美國賓夕法尼亞大學教授Victor H. Mair

德州奧斯汀大學副教授 Donald Rodgers

曼尼托巴大學教授Terence Russell

渥太華大學教授Scott Simon

美國傳統基金會高級研究員譚慎格

台灣公報編輯Gerrit van der Wees

美國賓夕法尼亞大學教授Arthur Waldron

美國里奇蒙大學教授Vincent Wei-cheng Wang

前美國副總統亞洲政策顧問葉望輝

中文翻譯：轉自與媒體對抗國際新聞版

英文原文連結：
Scholars Find Taiwan’s Minster of Justice’s Response Inadequate

01-Dec-2008
Scholars Find Taiwan’s Minster of Justice’s Response Inadequate

The previous posting of Taiwan’s Minister of Justice’s response to the JOINT STATEMENT of the scholars and writers (posted November 15) did not address the real issues of the erosion of justice in Taiwan. Ignoring numerous other protests also listed below, the Minister’s response appears to hide behind the technicalities of the Constitution. Taiwan’s current Constitution has many inadequacies; among them is that it was created for continental China but ill fits the island nation of Taiwan. By the Minister’s implication it is so broad that it allows numerous abuses that may be technically within the letter of the law but far from the spirit and purpose of the law. For this reason it can allow the selective application to one’s political opposition and still fall under the umbrella of the Constitution. For that reason, the scholars/writers of the first statement on the erosion of justice in Taiwan felt obligated to respond in specifics to the Minister’s letter. That response can be found below.

November 28th 2008

The Honorable Wang Ching-feng

Minister of Justice

Taipei, Taiwan

Dear Minister Wang,

In an open letter to the Taipei Times, published on November 25th 2008, you responded to our joint statement regarding the erosion of justice in Taiwan. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the sincerity of our concerns, and are grateful to receive a prompt and serious reply. Based on the information available to us, however, we remain concerned about choices made by prosecutors in applying existing legal authority and strongly believe in the need for reform. Please allow us to highlight a number of specific points:

1. The procedure of “preventive detention.” This procedure is obviously intended for serious criminal cases in which the suspect is likely to flee the country. In his November 13th article in the South China Morning Post, Professor Jerome Cohen states that “it ought to be invoked rarely.”

Yet, during the past weeks, it has been used across the board, and it has been used only against present and former members of the DPP government. This casts severe doubts on the impartiality of the judicial system. We also wish to point out that the people involved were detained under deplorable circumstances, and that they were not even allowed to see relatives.

2. The open letter contains the argument that when they were detained, the present and former DPP government officials “were all informed of the charges that had been brought against them.” This is simply not correct: when they were detained, they were subject to lengthy interrogations in some cases for up to 20 hours which bore the character of a “fishing expedition,” and is not a formal indictment in any legal sense. In most cases the prosecutors had had months of time to collect information: if they did have sufficient evidence of wrong-doing, they should formally have charged the persons and let them have their day in a scrupulously impartial court of law. That would be the desirable procedure under the rule of law in a democratic society.

3. The open letter also states that the persons involved had “the right and ability to communicate with their attorneys to seek legal assistance.” It neglects to mention that in all cases where people were detained, the discussions with the lawyers were recorded and videotaped, while a guard took notes. This information was then immediately transmitted to the respective prosecutors. We don’t need to point out that this is a grave infringement on international norms regarding the lawyer-client privilege, and makes mounting an adequate defense problematic at best.

4. On the issue of leaks to the press, the letter states that under the Code of Criminal Procedure information on ongoing investigations can only be disclosed by spokespersons of the prosecutor’s offices and that unauthorized disclosure is subject to criminal prosecution. The fact of the matter is that during the past weeks, the media has been filled with information on the ongoing investigations which could only have come from the prosecutors. We may point out one example, but there are ample others:

Only a few hours after former Foreign Minister Mark Chen was questioned on November 3rd, the Apple Daily (a local tabloid) ran an article that “the prosecutors are thinking of charging Dr. Chen in relation to the case.”

The issue of violation of the principle of secret investigation was also raised by Shih Lin District Court Judge Hung Ing-hua, who strongly criticized the present situation and procedures followed by your Ministry in an article in the “Liberty Times” on November 17th 2008.

We may also mention that we find it highly peculiar that no steps whatsoever have been taken against the various prosecutors who leaked information, while we just learned that your ministry is now taking steps against Mr. Cheng Wen-long, the lawyer for former President Chen Shui-bian, who presumably “leaked” information to the press. Your Ministry sent a formal request to the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office asking the office to investigate and prosecute, and also sent a formal request to Taiwan Lawyer’s Association and asked the association to review the case and see whether Cheng should have his license revoked.

It is our understanding that the statements Mr. Cheng made were in relation to former President Chen’s views on Taiwan’s situation and its future, and an expression of love for his wife, but did not have any bearing on the case against him. We hope your Excellency realizes that if you proceed along these lines, this will be perceived as a direct confirmation of the strong political bias of the judicial system.

5. The letter states that it is untrue that Taiwan’s judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation. If this is the case, how can it be explained that in the past weeks, only DPP officials have been detained and given inhumane treatment such as handcuffing and lengthy questioning, while obvious cases of corruption by members of the KMT - including in the Legislative Yuan - are left untouched by the prosecutors or at best stalled in the judicial process?

We may also refer to expressions of concern by Prof. Jerome Cohen and by lawyer Nigel Li, who expressed his deep concerns about the preventive detentions in an editorial in the “China Times” on November 9, 2008. In his editorial, Mr. Li praised the remarks made by prosecutor Chen Rui-ren, who was part of the legal team prosecuting the special fund cases, that the prosecutors’ offices should “avoid the appearance of targeting only one particular political group.”

The fact that the Special Investigation Task Force was set up under the DPP Administration or that the prosecutor general was nominated by President Chen is not at issue here. The problem is that the present system is being used in a very partial fashion.

We may add that the fact that you yourself have publicly discussed the content of the cases does create a serious imbalance in the playing field, and undermines the basic dictum that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under the present circumstances it is hard to see how the persons involved including former President Chen Shui-bian can have a fair trial in Taiwan.

6. Lastly, you take the statement by the US State Department as an “endorsement” of Taiwan’s legal system and the procedures followed. You might want to note that in international diplomatic language, the term we have every expectation means we are concerned and we will watch the situation closely.

For the past two decades, Taiwan has faced a difficult situation internationally. What has given Taiwan important credibility in Western democratic countries around the world has been its democratization. We fear that the current judicial procedures being used in Taiwan endanger this democratization, and endanger the goodwill that Taiwan has developed internationally.

In conclusion: we do remain deeply disturbed by the erosion of justice in Taiwan, and express the sincere hope and expectation that your government will maintain fair and impartial judicial practices and quickly correct the present injustices. As an editorial in the November 20th issue of the London-based Economist indicated, Taiwan is hungry for justice, and we also hope that your government will be willing to initiate judicial reform which would move Taiwan towards a fully fair and impartial judicial system which earns the respect and admiration from other democratic countries around the world.

Respectfully yours,

Signatories of the November 4th Joint Statement

1. Nat Bellocchi, former Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan
2. Julian Baum, former Taiwan Bureau Chief, Far Eastern Economic Review
3. Coen Blaauw, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DC
4. Stéphane Corcuff, Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon, France *
5. Gordon G. Chang, author, “The Coming Collapse of China.”
6. David Curtis Wright, Associate Professor of History, University of Calgary
7. June Teufel Dreyer, Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Florida
8. Edward Friedman, Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison
9. Mark Harrison, Senior Lecturer, Head of Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia*
10. Bruce Jacobs, Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
11. Richard C. Kagan, Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University, St. Paul Minnesota
12. Jerome F. Keating, Associate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author, “Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan’s Complex History” and other works on Taiwan
13. Daniel Lynch, Associate Professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California
14. Victor H. Mair, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania
15. Donald Rodgers, Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College, Texas
16. Terence Russell, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba
17. Scott Simon, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa
18. Peter Tague, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
19. John J. Tkacik Jr., Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC
20. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang, Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond, Virginia
21. Arthur Waldron, Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania
22. Gerrit van der Wees, Editor Taiwan Communiqué, Washington DC
23. Stephen Yates, President of DC Asia Advisory and former Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs
Written by judie35 in: 人權保衛行動

    

  Tweet