Should Wei Ying-ch'ung Be Handcuffed?

The Ting Hsin Group sold tainted oil, provoking public outrage and a widespread boycott intended to drive them out of business. However, they are powerful elites—red-chip capitalists operating across the Taiwan Strait with vast wealth, and influential financial backers deeply connected to the political establishment. The fall of Ting Hsin could drag down the ruling party, and perhaps implicate figures in the opposition as well. Having committed unscrupulous practices three times, Ting Hsin has nearly been "struck out" by the Taiwanese public. This compounded the public's fury against the elites amid widening wealth inequality. The intertwining of money and politics has long been a pain point for the people of Taiwan, who are eager to root it out and see swift justice. Even statements from Tzu Chi and Master Cheng Yen frequently draw criticism; how much more so for prosecutors and the police, whose credibility has historically been lacking? Without rigorous adherence to proper procedures, they are easily exposed to criticism and exploitation.

After prosecutor arrested Wei Ying-ch'ung in court, a controversy arose over whether he was or should have been handcuffed on his way to the district court for the detention hearing. When handling cases involving powerful elites, prosecutors must not only strengthen their legal proficiency but also exercise extreme caution regarding procedural matters. Otherwise, caught in endless political whirlpools and undercurrents, the consequences could be severe—Huang Shih-ming's cautionary tale is not far behind.

Court Bailiffs Have an Easier Time

To trace the issue back to its source, whether handcuffs should be used in a state governed by the rule of law relies on the law itself. Let us first examine the legal regulations. The bailiffs of the district prosecutors' offices, who have borne the brunt of public criticism, must comply with the "Directions for Bailiffs of Prosecutors Offices on the Use of Restraints" (full title: Directions for Bailiffs of Taiwan High Prosecutors Office and Prosecutors Offices at All Levels Thereunder on the Use of Restraints).

Reading through these mere eight points of regulation makes one truly sympathize with the bailiffs. The provisions are interconnected yet contradictory, extraordinarily vague in phrasing, and rife with room for imagination. To be fair, if I were a bailiff, I truly would not know how to follow them. Perhaps we should first examine the regulations of the courts. After all, courts also employ bailiffs, and their duties are largely similar.

The "Directions for Court Bailiffs on the Use of Restraints" (full title: Directions for Bailiffs of Taiwan High Court and Courts at All Levels Thereunder on the Use of Restraints) are much clearer. They explicitly outline several circumstances in which restraints (handcuffs) "shall" be used, as well as several circumstances in which they "may" be used. Furthermore, for any situation where restraints "may" be used, a "prompt report must be made to the judge" after their use.

Take Wei Ying-ch'ung as an example: he was "a person under arrest" (Article 2, Paragraph 3), and subsequently "a defendant whom the court has ruled to permit detention" (Article 2, Paragraph 4). Under these circumstances, restraints "shall" be applied, meaning handcuffs must be used.

Of course, we can challenge whether such "formalistic" regulations are reasonable; after all, he turned himself in voluntarily and may not have posed a flight risk. However, until these directives are amended, he met these conditions simultaneously, and by law, restraints "shall" still be used. The bailiffs had no other choice—it was clear-cut and decisive.

Prosecutors' Office Bailiffs Left in the Dark

The provisions of the "Directions for Bailiffs of Prosecutors Offices on the Use of Restraints" are actually quite similar to those of the courts. However, according to the Ministry of Justice, ever since former President Ch'en Shui-bian's "raising of his handcuffed hands" scene proved too "shocking to the public," the Ministry "complied with public opinion" and amended the regulations.

The method of amendment was absurdly simple: changing every instance of the word "shall" in the legal provisions to "may." This is truly ridiculous—an irresponsible and evasive legislative amendment, an overreach of power that rejects legal restraint, and a self-inflicted predicament.

Comparing this with the court regulations, whenever restraints "may" be used, there are complementary measures in place, namely the requirement to "promptly report to the judge." The Ministry of Justice's amendment included no comparable supporting measures; there is no requirement to "promptly report to the prosecutor." This entirely shifts the associated consequences and responsibilities onto the frontline bailiffs.

By changing just a single word, let us ask: when Situation 1, Situation 2, Situation 3, or Situation 4 arises, can restraints be used? The answer is: they "may" be used (which also means they "may not" be used). Let us ask again: when Situation 5, Situation 6, Situation 7, or Situation 8 arises, can restraints be used? The answer remains: they "may" be used (or may not be used). Good grief, having elaborately outlined eight different situations, wasn't it all rendered completely pointless? Such legislative technique is lamentably poor!

Moreover, vague regulations not only unjustly imperil frontline bailiffs but also impose excessive burdens upon them. According to the division of powers and responsibilities, bailiffs should fundamentally be responsible only for the safety and escort of suspects, without getting involved in the merits of the case itself. Making judgments on whether or not to use restraints often ties into the progress of case investigations—work that is unnecessary for bailiffs.

Furthermore, bailiffs sometimes merely provide mutual backup in manpower; requiring them to make instantaneous judgments is factually impossible, and demanding it normatively is unfair. Article 5-1 of the Detention Act and Article 23 of the Prison Act embody a similar spirit: the decision of frontline escort personnel on whether to apply restraints must ultimately be controlled by the warden or superior. Unless there is an immediate security issue, they cannot make the decision on their own. Even if a decision is made, it must be promptly reviewed by a superior. This is the underlying spirit of the legislation, which also incorporates the meaning of separating authority and responsibility.

Fearful of Trouble and Overreaching of Power Draw Scrutiny

In truth, even if frontline bailiffs are not the ones making decisions, the Ministry of Justice's amendment grants prosecutors excessive discretionary space, easily giving rise to unfairness. This is precisely what people currently criticize and question: Why were Tseng Ch'i-ming, Ch'en Shui-bian, Chao T'eng-hsiung, and Feng Kuang-yuan all handcuffed, while Wei Ying-ch'ung was not?

The Ministry of Justice is risk-averse and lacks accountability. Consequently, when the media questioned why Ch'en Shui-bian, who arguably had no risk of fleeing, was still handcuffed, they immediately amended the regulations in response. Yet the result of this amendment lacked comprehensive consideration; it was merely a stopgap measure. Furthermore, it expanded the scope for prosecutors' arbitrary interpretation, creating opportunities for manipulation and inviting criticism over inconsistent application across individual cases.

Adhering to the spirit of the rule of law, clearly defining statutory elements, and thereafter properly administering the law and handling cases in accordance with the law constitute the best amulet to safeguard prosecutors' independent investigations. Officials come and go, public opinion fluctuates, and neither elites nor superiors are reliable patrons—only legal elements and rigorous procedures are.

To see the big picture from a small clue, handcuffing is merely a trivial matter, yet it was handled evasively and awkwardly. For prosecutors attempting to successfully navigate cases of all sizes harboring political undercurrents, it is truly alarming and leaves one breaking out in a cold sweat.