Before Throwing Stones at Kai Ko

A hypothetical script: "The Chinese Communists want to teach a film mogul a lesson, because he's grown too prominent or hasn't been doing as told. They hear his son is imitating Hollywood stars by smoking pot. Unable to find anything on the father, they make an example of the son. Just a lesson, not a fight to the finish; there's a cute, wholesome young star by his side, so parade him before the public too. Guilt, repentance, sobbing; his image plummets. For the father, the son, and the bystanders alike, the shock and deterrence value is off the charts. Many birds with one stone, plenty of dramatic tension. Perfect. The audience applauds, feels moved, each takes something away, the show ends, and the actors are left strewn across the floor."

Of course, that is pure speculation. Seeing Kai Ko break down sobbing, the wholesome young star transformed, admitting his mistakes, the public has responded with a chorus of condemnation. Some want to punch him in the face, some are rushing to compile lists of celebrities who have used drugs, some are hurriedly pulling the anti-drug videos he endorsed. Even those who want to say a word on his behalf must open with "drug use is simply wrong" or "personally, I don't like him." Ten thousand arrows fly, piercing the heart.

The Leaked Video Matters More

More important than the fight against drugs is the fact that officials deliberately leaked the video. Kai Ko wept and apologized, admitting his mistakes, but believe this: as every wrongful conviction case profoundly attests, rogue police are fully capable of intimidating people, extracting confessions, and getting them to talk. A 23-year-old held for three days in an unfamiliar place, cut off from the outside world, most frightening of all not knowing whether there will be a tomorrow: to escape that situation, getting him to confess even to murder might not be very hard.

So beware of the unspoken implications of this "confession" video: first, it uses a "confession," not evidence, to prove the "facts"; second, it shows only Kai Ko and not Jaycee Chan, obvious "differential treatment"; third, the leak was deliberate, and under the glare of "celebrities using drugs," everything else fades and no one looks deeper; fourth, it completely destroys Kai Ko's image, convicting him before trial in the court of public opinion, at any cost.

A "confession" is just like an "admission": traditional culture places great weight on "statements," and once someone "confesses," other evidence no longer matters. That is precisely the most common root problem in wrongful conviction cases: once there is a confession, it is very hard to overturn. "Differential treatment" needs no explanation; whether it was to save face for Jackie Chan or an attack with an ulterior motive, Kai Ko is just a pawn.

The video was leaked deliberately, in complete violation of investigation confidentiality. Some may say that in China this is an "administrative case," not a "criminal case." But this method of "calling it by another name" is merely reactionary rhetoric to excuse human rights violations; the protection of personal liberty does not differ depending on whether a case is administrative or criminal.

Moreover, the most important purpose of investigation confidentiality is to protect individual privacy and thereby uphold human dignity. Once an entertainer is tainted by drugs, their career stumbles, especially for someone with a wholesome image. The Chinese Communists upped the ante: a state, without mercy, used a humiliating video to destroy a "person's" image, nakedly displaying his breakdown, willing to ruin a young man's name and reputation. It is truly chilling.

Personal Liberty Matters More

More than the fight against drugs, what we should care about is the protection of personal liberty. In Taiwan, no matter how heinous the crime, if an arrested person is not brought before a court within 24 hours, the police themselves feel great pressure. That is the constitutional protection of personal liberty in practice. The rule of law is truly realized only when law enforcers respect and obey the law from the heart, even internalizing it as the standard for their actions; otherwise, even the most beautiful legal provisions are mere decorations.

In Taiwan, an arrest must be notified in writing to the arrested person's family, and the family may also petition the court for habeas corpus, whether it is an "administrative case" or a "criminal proceeding." Had the media not broken the story, how long Kai Ko would have been held is anyone's guess. Even someone detained incommunicado would not be kept from knowing where he is held, much less barred from seeing a lawyer. These are the most basic elements of personal liberty. It's not that the Chinese Communists have no laws; it's just that no one really takes the law seriously.

By contrast, Taiwan's government has repeatedly kept silent when China violates human rights; even when the victims are Taiwanese, it seems to automatically shrink back and dare not argue its case. If the Ministry of Justice is so proud of the "cross-strait judicial agreement" and sincerely believes in the protection of personal liberty under Article 8 of the Constitution, should we lower our judicial standards to fully accommodate the other side? Or should we leverage incidents that expose such a major gap in judicial standards between the two sides, negotiate hard with public opinion behind us, and use them to raise the other side's standards? The Ministry of Justice should be able to do more.

Be Careful Before Throwing Stones

We therefore remind the Ministry of Justice: when China has clearly broken the law procedurally and has yet to produce evidence on the substance, there is really no need to rush to echo the other side and dance to its tune. Pulling the anti-drug ads, opening an investigation at lightning speed, and announcing in advance that upon his return he will have his hair tested and be sent for observation and rehabilitation, as though it had already unilaterally concluded that Kai Ko used drugs, seriously violates the presumption of innocence.

This is not to question whether the Ministry or prosecutors have the authority to investigate on their own initiative. Rather, the "professional attitude" the Ministry has shown seems to fall even below that of ordinary netizens. Toward public security officers with an appalling human rights record, for whom arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture to extract confessions are routine, it showed no vigilance or wariness and swallowed their conclusions whole. Hastily picking up the anti-drug banner casually handed to it, it rushed to be first to pick up stones and hurl them at Kai Ko's face.

Of course, we may despise drugs, and we need not accept claims that marijuana is harmless. But before throwing stones, we must first ask ourselves: are we also swallowing every plot point in the script whole?