Sexual Assault, Gas Explosions, Accountability, and the Compensations by the State Act

Criminal statistics have dark figures, referring to crimes that are never discovered or reported. Similarly, any scandal or unspeakable wrongdoing has its dark figures; actual harms or offenses will always outnumber those that are uncovered. "164 cases" of sexual assault and sexual harassment, "92 students" involved, spanning a period of "7 years." These numbers represent the victim statistics of a collective sexual assault incident at a special education school.

Looking at another dimension, "16 civil servants" in the education sector have been impeached, "10 individuals" demoted or given demerits, "6 individuals" faced no disciplinary action at all, state compensation currently stands at "NT$5.3 million," and the amount recovered from derelict civil servants is "NT$0." These are the corresponding statistical figures for the civil servants who should bear responsibility.

State Compensation is Difficult, and Holding Officials Accountable is Even Harder

Behind these cold statistics lie the warm life trajectories of individuals. The number of students involved is already shockingly large, yet "1" can represent "the "all." Although it is just "1" person, the entire life trajectory of "all" of them has been rewritten. However, seven long years of official negligence made these lives seem so weightless.

Conversely, these civil servants receive the utmost attention and protection from the State. Administrative accountability is a mere slap on the wrist; for state compensation, victims must fend for themselves; the State pays to settle the matter, and the general public foots the bill. Although the Compensations by the State Act stipulates that recourse may be sought against derelict civil servants, under the self-protective mindset of administrative agencies—reminiscent of a mafia where bosses shield underlings, superiors protect subordinates, and collective shielding prevails—the law is rendered a dead letter.

The special education school established a "State Compensation Incident Handling Panel" that raised obstacles in every possible way, demanding that parents attend in person while refusing to negotiate with lawyers or representatives—a practice both unlawful and unreasonable. Even more bewilderingly, the panel members actually included individuals implicated in the case, acting as both players and referees with no recusal of interest, completely lacking even the most basic notions of procedural justice. At one point, they even attempted to impose "not being able to sue civil servants" as a condition for compensation; the school authorities were clearly bent on shielding their own people.

In fact, even if a case reaches the court, administrative agencies still have plenty of tricks up their sleeves. Taking the Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) case as an example, prior to indictment, the Ministry of National Defense arbitrarily settled with the civil servants, resolving a liability of nearly NT$15 million with a mere NT$2.8 million settlement. After indictment, liability can also be evenly distributed, diluting the responsibility of Ch'en Chao-min (陳肇敏), who should have borne the greatest blame. Of course, litigation procedures are fraught with countless nuances and details—failing to make necessary arguments, failing to appeal when appropriate, or failing to present evidence—making them even harder to guard against.

Highlights of the Draft Compensations by the State Act

While these undoubtedly reflect a culture of official protectionism, they are also partly related to the rudimentary nature of the current Compensations by the State Act. Following the gas explosion in Kaohsiung, the issue of state compensation came to the fore, and the Ministry of Justice seized the opportunity to propose a long-discussed amendment draft, which indeed contains several new highlights.

For instance, to prevent the original agency from perversely shielding civil servants, superior agencies can order the original agency to pursue the liability of derelict civil servants; if the original agency remains dilatory and fails to hold them accountable, the superior authority may even "make a claim on its behalf." Unfortunately, if more neutral and objective organs (such as the National Audit Office) could be allowed to join as litigation participants, it might better prevent intentional or unintentional leniency during judicial proceedings.

Furthermore, the criteria for claims have been made more explicit, moving away from an "egalitarian equality" that merely divides responsibility evenly, and instead assessing liability based on each civil servant's "degree of culpability, nature of duties, and amount of compensation." When multiple parties are involved, liabilities can be determined individually, and once liability is established, civil servants may pay in installments. These are all more reasonable and explicit amendments.

Regrettably, no matter how well these substantive legal requirements are drafted, the provisions themselves will always leave room for discussion and application. How the review committee is composed, the sources of its members, how procedures are conducted, the method of decision-making, and the binding force of decisions are all lacking in clear regulations. Of course, at least in terms of interpretation, the Administrative Procedure Act should apply.

Laws Cannot Enforce Themselves: Two Perspectives

Be that as it may, laws cannot enforce themselves. Whether in sexual assault cases, gas explosion incidents, or compensation for wrongful executions, when the State has paid out compensation and genuinely seeks to hold civil servants accountable, it touches upon whether the standards of accountability should be high or low. In terms of general categorization, what corresponding levels of stricter or more lenient responsibility should be imposed for different types of dereliction remains a standard that must be gradually accumulated through individual cases.

Regarding general review standards, the first argument holds that civil servants' liability should be maximized whenever possible so that they remain vigilant, preventing them from readily infringing upon people's rights or remaining indifferent to them. Another perspective is that the State should shoulder more of the burden and appropriately mitigate the liability of civil servants to prevent them from bearing excessive pressure, thereby enabling them to "boldly take on tasks" rather than devolve into passive "defensive administration."

It is believed that these two perspectives—whether the "state deductible" should be light or heavy—are the soul that will truly shape the future direction of the Compensations by the State Act.