Detentions without charge fuel law debate
　

By Jimmy Chuang
STAFF REPORTER
Sunday, Dec 14, 2008, Page 3

The detention of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬), Chiayi County Commissioner Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) and other pan-green figures have sparked a debate about potential amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法).

Chen Shui-bian, Chen Ming-wen and Su all started hunger strikes in protest of their “unfair” detention without charge. Su and Chen Ming-wen continued to turn away food until they were indicted and released, while Chen Shui-bian gave up his hunger strike after being hospitalized.

The former president was detained on Nov. 12 after questioning by the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office in relation to money laundering allegations.

After his lawyer Cheng Wen-lung (鄭文龍) continued to speak on the former president’s behalf in public, the Ministry of Justice requested that Cheng not pass on any messages and said it would seek punishment for Cheng with the Taipei Bar Association. The association said Cheng was merely carrying out his duties as a lawyer.

Cheng criticized prosecutors for Chen Shui-bian’s continued detention without charge.

The former president was indicted on Friday and released on bail yesterday.

Su is suspected of accepting bribes in a landfill construction project in Yunlin County back in 2006.

Yunlin prosecutors showed up at her residence early in the morning on Nov. 4, escorted her to the prosecutors’ office and immediately put her behind bars with the permission of judges.

Su began her hunger strike immediately in protest of being detained without charge and before having been questioned by prosecutors.

Yunlin Chief Prosecutor Liu Chia-fang (劉家芳), upset by complaints from Su and her supporters, defended the decision to detain Yu. Prosecutors would not detain someone without due cause, Liu said.

Su was indicted and released on Nov. 14.

Chen Ming-wen was detained on Oct. 28 on suspicion of bribery. Prosecutors did not speak to him until Nov. 21, when they questioned him and released him on NT$3 million (US$90,000) bail.

RISK OF ABUSE

The detention of suspects without charge for extended periods of time has been criticized by their supporters and lawyers who argue that prosecutors use detention without charge to pressure a suspect into providing information on the case. Prosecutors, however, say the detentions have not violated any laws.

National Taiwan University law professor Wang Jaw-perng (王兆鵬) suggested amending the Code of Criminal Procedure. Judges should only grant a request to detain a suspect in special circumstances, he said.

“Detention should be the last option for prosecutors to consider if the person fails to cooperate and help them in their investigation,” Wang said.

“But our law allows law enforcement officers to detain a suspect first and then continue to collect sufficient evidence [to charge them],” Wang said.

Wang said the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that a detention request may be granted in cases where the suspect is believed to have committed a crime punishable by death or a sentence longer than five years.

But “once they detain a person, the prosecutors have the advantage and the game isn’t fair at all.”

IMPLEMENTATION

The state public prosecutor-general, Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明), said that there was no problem with the code, but that there was room for improvement in its implementation.

“To detain a suspect prior to the trial is quite normal around the world. The only difference is for how long,” Chen Tsung-ming said.

“Law enforcement officers should be more careful when they decide to detain somebody. We should be more precise, when we are deciding whether a person needs to be temporarily put behind bars,” he said.

Although defending his fellow prosecutors in the Su case, Liu echoed Chen Tsung-ming’s remarks.

“Perhaps we could be more patient and gentle through the process,” Liu said. “Detention should always be the last option.”

At a press conference on Friday, SIP Prosecutor Yueh Fang-ju (越方如) said she seldom chose to detain a suspect.

“When you detain a person, you do not only detain this person, you actually [penalize] the entire family because this person’s family members will begin to suffer the pain as well,” Yueh said.

“Sometimes, as a prosecutor, you need to consider whether it is really necessary to do so when it comes to detention. You cannot be careful enough,” Yueh said.

The freedom to talk

“Opportunistic, rash and shortsighted” — this is what the Beijing government has branded the meeting between the Dalai Lama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. But the words more aptly describe Beijing’s tactics.

The recent demand by Beijing that Sarkozy not meet with the Dalai Lama was ridiculous and, thankfully, ignored. The very fact that the demand was made at all illustrates the naivete and pompous attitude of the Chinese government in its attempt to push the political agenda outside its own country.

Politics is often complicated but meeting freely and communicating is a basic human right that should be vigilantly guarded at all costs.

Governments such as those in North Korea and Myanmar suppress the right of people to assemble and communicate their views to one another, and are seen as backward regimes. It is surprising that China, for all its celebrated progress, would continue to use such tactics to thwart personal communication.

It is particularly alarming that China would even attempt to make demands on two people living outside its own borders.

Sarkozy could not have afforded to kowtow to these unreasonable demands; the implications were too terrible to imagine. It would call into question his integrity as a leader who places basic human freedoms before politics.

Let’s look at what China accomplished. It received a black eye in the international arena. After putting its best foot forward in this year’s Olympics, Beijing has tarnished its progressive image by playing the bully and storming out of an EU summit.

China’s claim that the Sarkozy meeting with the Dalai Lama hurt the feelings of the Chinese people is downright silly — and talk of boycotts on French products only serves to illustrate this point.

Sarkozy was right to assert that he was “free to talk to whoever he wants.” We all should be: It is a matter of values, convictions and, above all, freedom.

Paul Oliver
Zuoying, Kaohsiung City