Lian Hongqing. Have practiced
rdnStsooeptif32t2091m
Points
l01
1icm25m1a6fml7atcu222
4
395ci9
9
71l
Clock
9
·
Finally came out after much calling
I think the indictment in the Ko Wen-je case is a bit "forced."
- Is the volume reward created by the municipal government considered "benefiting"? If so, then former Tainan Mayor Lai Ching-te also broke the law, yet the Northern District Prosecutors Office does not apply the same standard.
- The definition of bribery requires a "quid pro quo," but based on the evidence held by the Northern District Prosecutors Office, it can only be said that after the progress of Jinghua City, Shen Qingjing voluntarily donated to Ko Wen-je, which can be explained as "courtesy" and does not constitute bribery.
- For political donation declarations and foundation expenditures, the Northern District Prosecutors Office should use the same standard to investigate the "foundations" of the Democratic Progressive Party. Selective justice is not justice.
The indictment has come out, and I can share my experience of testifying.
On October 21, I went to the Investigation Bureau to testify, and then the Northern District Prosecutors Office conducted a follow-up inquiry.
What the prosecutor wanted to know was "What is the content of the work for which I receive a salary from Muke?"
I said I was doing work for the People's Party, and I subjectively believe that I am a worker dispatched by Muke to the People's Party.
The investigator showed me Muke's remittance records and said, "Although you receive a salary from Muke, Muke immediately offsets it with the surplus from Ko Wen-je's political donations. How do you explain that?"
I said, "Doesn't this align perfectly with what I just said? Ko Wen-je's political donations go to Muke, and Muke pays me a salary. This is the model of dispatched labor."
Next, I went to the Northern District Prosecutors Office for a follow-up inquiry.
The prosecutor asked me, "Since you are working for the People's Party, why does Ko Wen-je go around and use Muke Company to pay you?"
I said, "Because I am not familiar with Ko Wen-je. He may be concerned that if the cooperation is not long-lasting, there could be disputes under the Labor Standards Act. If he directly hires me through the People's Party, it would be more complicated. As far as I know, this model is not uncommon in the political arena."
Prosecutor: "So Ko Wen-je is trying to evade responsibilities under the Labor Standards Act?"
I said, "Muke still has to bear the responsibilities under the Labor Standards Act; there is no evasion."
Prosecutor: "So Ko Wen-je doesn't want to be scrutinized by the outside world if there are any disputes with the workers?"
I: "If I feel bullied, I can still hold a press conference and seek public evaluation."
Looking back, it's funny why the prosecutor wants to debate with the witness?
Moreover, whether dispatched employees are a good model has nothing to do with criminal law. Why does the prosecutor want to make extrajudicial moral judgments???
Then the prosecutor asked me what I was doing in the People's Party.
I said, "The People's Party is the third-largest party, and it should balance the ruling party. The internal operations of the People's Party should not be something the government can probe into. I can tell you that I work in the People's Party, but regarding the content of my work, I exercise my right to refuse to testify."
Prosecutor: "Legal basis?"
I said, "According to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court, defendants and defense attorneys have the right to confidential communication. To illustrate the point, I believe that the opposition party does not need to explain its internal operations to the government. Your current actions are approaching political surveillance."
Prosecutor: "Make a note."
I was very pleased that the prosecutor respected the opposition party's right to be free from government interference. However, with the indictment coming out today, my name is still in the indictment.
In other words, the prosecutor believes
Not explaining what I do in the People's Party = not doing the work of the People's Party = Ko Wen-je illegally using political donations.
I was really dumbfounded.
If Ma Ying-jeou were in power, and the prosecutor asked someone receiving political donations from Tsai Ing-wen, "What are you doing for Tsai Ing-wen? If you don't explain, I will assume you are not doing anything for Tsai Ing-wen, and Tsai Ing-wen is illegally using political donations."
Would the Democratic Progressive Party accept this standard? Can the Ma government probe into the operations of the Democratic Progressive Party like this?
The presumption of innocence means that it is the prosecutor's responsibility to prove "○○○ did not do the work of the People's Party," rather than requiring ○○○ to explain "what they did for the People's Party."
The Northern District Prosecutors Office gives me the impression that they have not adhered to "the circumstances favorable and unfavorable to the defendant must be noted."
Moreover, in my testimony, I have clearly stated that I work in the People's Party, and the prosecutor has not provided counter-evidence but still uses my example to indict Ko Wen-je. Such quality of prosecution should be subject to public evaluation.
@Followers