The Tofu Pudding War: Is the Ministry of Justice Acting Like Nothing Happened?

Legislator Tuan Yi-kang was exposed for allegedly lobbying the Ministry of Justice, putting pressure on Prosecutor Huang Meng-shan of the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office, and even forcing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change its standards, making anhydrous gypsum a legal food additive. Amid the legislative elections and political struggles, the media naturally did not let this go. Prosecutor Huang hurriedly deleted her Facebook posts, Legislator Tuan continuously made statements to clear his name, and the FDA was caught in a difficult position. Strangely enough, without that fax allegedly from the Ministry of Justice in the first place, subsequent developments would not have occurred. Why is the Ministry of Justice acting like a bystander? Maintaining neutrality? "Not intervening in individual cases"?

The lesson of Wang Chin-pyng making a phone call for Ker Chien-ming is not far behind. Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu lost his official post, Chief Prosecutor Ch'en Shou-huang and Prosecutor Lin Hsiu-tao were disciplined, and both Wang and Ker fell into a political storm. Regrettably, under the deliberate minimization and handling by the Ministry of Justice and politicians, the facts remain unclear. Coupled with the wiretapping controversy triggered by Huang Shih-ming, the entire incident eventually degenerated into a political offensive and defensive battle. The lobbying case was not handled seriously, and it is hard to tell whether Wang and Ker were more aggrieved, or Tseng, Ch'en, and Lin more innocent. All that remains are conflicting claims and the reputation of prosecutors trampled underfoot.

Failing to Block Bullets for Frontline Personnel

Since Prosecutor Huang already felt that her handling of the case was being pressured, this matter is no small issue and should not simply pass with a complaint on Facebook. She should have long ago produced concrete evidence, followed formal channels, or held a media press conference to openly declare war on the legislator. This surely would have curbed the unhealthy practice of improperly interfering in individual cases. If she only maintains an even lower profile, or even attempts to smooth things over and let the matter rest—just like the higher-ups in the prosecutorial system in the past—what kind of high-profile cases can the public expect prosecutors to investigate? If Legislator Tuan indeed engaged in lobbying and pressure, ending his political life is a mission from which prosecutors cannot shirk.

Therefore, who in the Ministry of Justice, on what occasion, and through what means accepted Legislator Tuan's instructions, and who wrote what content and faxed it to the handling prosecutor should all be explained one by one. The Ministry of Justice itself is at the core of the entire controversy; talking about "not intervening in individual cases" is simply absurd. Having failed to block bullets for frontline prosecutors or even boldly expose improper interference, the Ministry of Justice has committed a dereliction of duty in the first place. Now, acting as if it is none of its business and leaving Prosecutor Huang and Legislator Tuan to fight each other out is even more incomprehensible. If it continues to let the tigers fight and just watch from the sidelines, could the Ministry of Justice have some "ulterior" considerations?

In addition to clarifying the facts of this case and investigating potential responsibilities, more importantly, the Ministry of Justice must strengthen its mechanisms to protect the handling space of frontline prosecutors. This case involves whether anhydrous gypsum is ultimately harmful to the human body. Different testing standards could indeed alter the standards for criminal prosecution. If a legislator publicly, positively, and not merely pleading for an individual case questions whether legal standards are overly harsh, it is actually beyond reproach and is even part of their duties.

Should Uniform Standards for Prosecution

However, frontline prosecutors handling cases should not be the ones directly bearing this pressure. After accepting legislative interpellation, if the Ministry of Justice feels there is merit, it should hand the matter over to the Prosecutor-General or chief prosecutors to be dealt with through chief prosecutor meetings or general prosecutor meetings. After all, unifying prosecutors' standards for prosecution is inherently the responsibility of the Prosecutor-General and chief prosecutors. If the Ministry of Justice directly sent a fax, it would then be suspected of interfering in an individual case. Intervening when it should not have intervened back then, and shrinking away when it should not back down now—with such a Ministry of Justice, do prosecutors even need enemies?