Press Release by the Anti-Corruption Action Alliance on the Legislative Veto of Prosecutor-General Nominee Hsieh Wen-ting

The Legislative Yuan held a confirmation vote for the Prosecutor-General today. Due to a boycott by the pan-Blue coalition, the confirmation could not be completed. In response, the Anti-Corruption Action Alliance calls on Prosecutor-General nominee Mr. Hsieh Wen-ting to promptly issue commitments that align with public expectations. The pan-Blue coalition should also adopt a rational approach to allow the confirmation of the Prosecutor-General to pass as soon as possible.

According to the newly amended Court Organization Act promulgated on February 3, 2006, significant reforms have been made to the prosecutorial system. The most notable changes for the public are, first, that "the Prosecutor-General shall be nominated by the President and appointed with the consent of the Legislative Yuan, for a four-year term without re-appointment," and second, the establishment of the "Special Investigation Division," which is responsible for investigating major corruption, elections, and economic crimes that jeopardize social order. President Chen accordingly nominated Hsieh Wen-ting as the Prosecutor-General designate to the Legislative Yuan on March 1 in accordance with the amended Court Organization Act. The Legislative Yuan also held meetings on March 23 and March 26 to review the nomination. Throughout the review process, the Anti-Corruption Action Alliance dispatched personnel to observe the review sessions. Our observations are summarized as follows:

1. Legislators demonstrated considerable dedication in reviewing the Prosecutor-General nominee:

1. Many legislators expressed concern regarding the personnel composition of the Special Investigation Division, as the caliber of its members naturally affects the division's future operational effectiveness. Some legislators also demanded that the Prosecutor-General nominee express opinions on national criminal policy and requested concrete improvement plans for current deficiencies within prosecutorial agencies.
2. The review period coincided with the South-Link Line derailment incident, during which the prosecution was heavily criticized by the public and media for allegedly violating the principle of non-disclosure of investigations. Many legislators also expressed concern over this matter. Furthermore, regarding whether to reopen the investigation into the March 19 shooting incident during the presidential election, legislators raised numerous inquiries. All of the above affirm the dedication exercised by legislators in exercising their review powers.

2. Legislators fell somewhat short in professional competence and meticulousness during the review, raising concerns of excessive political maneuvering:

1. Slight lack of meticulousness in questioning during the review: Restricted by the fact that judicial matters often involve specialized areas, legislators who are less familiar with them naturally cannot pose incisive inquiries concerning the duties of the Prosecutor-General. This was an unfortunate shortcoming.
2. Practices demanding investigative directions for specific cases were inappropriate: It was improper for legislators to ask the Prosecutor-General to express opinions on individual cases. For instance, regarding the public's concern over the March 19 shooting incident, it appears to presume, before the case has even been tried, that a conspiracy must exist, thereby pressuring the Prosecutor-General designate to investigate in a specific direction. While the question of whether to "reopen the investigation" could be addressed by promising to review the case files upon taking office to determine whether reopening is necessary—and deciding how to handle the matter based on whether it falls outside the effect of the original final non-prosecution disposition—there is no obligation to follow the investigative directions demanded by legislators. In addition, it was inappropriate to demand that the Prosecutor-General include any specific individuals in the Special Investigation Division. The qualification review of the Prosecutor-General should not be entangled with other personnel cases, and the staffing of the Special Investigation Division falls within their authority. Perhaps a more feasible approach would be to request potential short-listed candidates or the chief prosecutor of the Special Investigation Division; the characteristics of these members can somewhat reveal the future trajectory of the Special Investigation Division.
3. The KMT and PFP legislative caucuses resolved to vote down the nomination prior to the vote, which regrettably came as a surprise attack: Regarding the review of Prosecutor-General designate Hsieh Wen-ting, based on the attitude of the legislators during the two review sessions, the public did not perceive any strong negative reactions toward the designate. However, a few days later and right before the vote, the KMT and PFP legislative caucuses passed caucus resolutions to vote against the nomination. While this decision was certainly influenced by the nominee's vague responses during the review, such a drastic reversal of attitude within a few days—apart from constituting a surprise decision that left the nominee with no opportunity for remedy—inevitably invites public speculation of excessive political maneuvering. This act caused the new system introduced by the amendments to the Court Organization Act to stall because a new Prosecutor-General could not be produced, preventing the Special Investigation Division from being established and major cases from immediately entering investigation, thereby also impairing the continuity of national criminal supervision. Paradoxically, this ran counter to the public's aspirations for a clean government free of political abuses.

3. Prosecutor-General nominee Mr. Hsieh Wen-ting failed to project an idealistic character during his Q&A at the review: Looking at the entire review process, Mr. Hsieh Wen-ting has long served as an administrative official. Aside from appearing somewhat unfamiliar with investigative practice, he seemed unable to project the idealistic character expected of a Prosecutor-General during the review process. His responses were vague and ambiguous; regarding the investigation of important cases raised by legislators, rather than failing to provide a general evaluation, he should at least have promised to review the case files and assess the necessity of reopening the investigations. Furthermore, he failed to provide predictable candidates to the outside world regarding the chiefs or members of his key staff unit, the Special Investigation Division. Consequently, legislators from certain factions harbored doubts about whether he could take pioneering actions in performing his duties and withstand political pressure, ultimately leading to the result of being vetoed by the parliament. This is the most disappointing aspect.

Overall, this epoch-making review and confirmation of the Prosecutor-General has been turbulent thus far, representing a learning process in our country's democratic development. However, the political landscape still appears trapped in a dilemma of zero-sum confrontation. Although Mr. Hsieh Wen-ting retains the bureaucratic habit of avoiding clear stances, he harbors no obvious political stance, and his past experiences regarding individual cases also demonstrate the persistence of a judicial officer. The KMT and PFP cited his lack of grit as a reason, yet failed to express this fully during the review sessions, resolving without warning to vote against his nomination before the vote. Their reasoning was weak, leaving a regrettable impression of excessive political maneuvering. Since the Prosecutor-General nominee has been rejected upon initial nomination, this nomination and confirmation procedure will start over from the beginning. We hope that the appointment of the Prosecutor-General does not fall into the quagmire of the Control Yuan member confirmation, leaving national criminal supervision absent for a prolonged period. The President should re-nominate as soon as possible, the parliament should swiftly exercise its confirmation power, and the next nominated candidate should learn from this lesson and demonstrate an idealistic character. We believe this will surely enable a robust and neutral prosecutorial system to get back on track at an early date.