Why is May so Freezing?

I will never forget the night Mr. Chu Mu-yen (朱木炎) won an Olympic gold medal for Taiwan!

At that time, everyone around, regardless of political affiliation or age, was already moved to tears....... Now that he has fallen victim to fraud, it is truly heartbreaking.

Regrettably, the police failed to show the same care and cherishment. During the investigative process, evidence related to the case was leaked to the media, and media outlets competed to report on it, satisfying those who chase sensationalist news while inflicting even more severe harm on the gold-medalist athlete. While a morbid societal phenomenon is undoubtedly the root cause, the police's total disregard for the "principle of non-disclosure of investigations" is most deserving of criticism—even though this has long been a persistent phenomenon within police agencies.

The "principle of non-disclosure of investigations" is explicitly stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Personnel participating in investigative procedures shall not publicly disclose matters learned during the performance of their duties, unless permitted by law, necessary for the maintenance of the public interest, or for the protection of legitimate rights and interests. The primary purpose of this provision is to safeguard fundamental human rights. Those who leak information shall be punished under the offense of divulging official secrets in the Criminal Code. The police's leaking behavior in this instance has indeed violated Article 132 of the Criminal Code concerning the offense of divulging secrets. This offense is subject to public prosecution, and both the leaking police officers and the media outlets that exposed the information fall within the scope of punishment under this provision. However, to date, prosecutors have not initiated investigations on their own accord, which is truly regrettable. Perhaps this is precisely the main reason why police agencies consistently disregard the principle of non-disclosure of investigations.

The legal profession has spared no effort in striving for the right to defense during investigative procedures, yet it still frequently encounters setbacks: police agencies that refuse to allow lawyers to "take notes" on the contents of police interrogations are still numerous everywhere; even worse, some police agencies only allow lawyers to "see" the person being questioned while refusing to let lawyers "hear" the questioning. Regarding this phenomenon, the police's interpretation of "non-disclosure of investigations" has developed a double standard, namely: they can "hand over evidence" to the media, but must not provide an "opportunity to hear" for defense counsel. Such a standard not only violates the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also severely infringes upon fundamental human rights.

Unlawful and absurd situations such as "taking police interrogation records in open office spaces," "police interrogation recordings frequently being interrupted without continuous recording," and "police interrogation records having audio recordings, but the tapes subsequently going missing or being degaussed" are still constantly being played out every day. General citizens who have never been exposed to criminal cases surely cannot imagine this.

What is even more surprising is that after enduring secondary victimization from the police and the media, Mr. Chu Mu-yen had to painfully step forward and hold a press conference to explain the cause of the case just to "satisfy" the demands of the media? Does justice and fairness still exist in our society at all?

Mr. Chu Mu-yen's experience of being defrauded entirely demonstrates his naive mindset; but "naivety" is by no means a crime, and society has no need to mock or condemn him. What deserves severe condemnation is the fraud syndicate and the leaking police.

Cold and ruthless denunciation is by no means a hallmark of a civilized society.

I wonder if Taiwan's society in May can stop being so freezing?

※ Published in: 2005-5-28 / China Times / Forum Square