TPP's Proposed Amendment to Criminal Procedure Sparks 'Ko Wen-je Clause' Accusations; Huang Kuo-chang Calls it Misleading

The Taiwan People's Party (TPP) legislative caucus's proposal to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure by removing 'risk of colluding with accomplices or witnesses' from the criteria for pre-trial detention has sparked debate. TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang stated today (the 7th) that the amendment aims to implement human rights in criminal justice, uphold the principle of presumption of innocence, and eliminate the practice of 'detaining to extract a confession.' He added that labeling the amendment as a 'Ko Wen-je clause' is an attempt to mislead the public.

According to media reports, the Legislative Yuan's Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee is set to review the TPP's proposed amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which includes removing 'risk of colluding with accomplices or witnesses' as a condition for detention. Concurrently, the amendment also seeks to add a provision in Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Law to apply Article 202, which states that 'interrogation must not involve physical restraint,' raising questions about whether the amendment is a 'Ko Wen-je clause.'

At the TPP's 'Twin-Taipei Dragon Boat Friendship Race & Volunteer Carnival' today, Huang Kuo-chang said in an interview that the TPP caucus's purpose in proposing the amendment is to realize human rights in criminal justice, enforce the principle of presumption of innocence, and stop the practice of detaining individuals to secure confessions. He mentioned that the finer details of the clauses can be further discussed during the committee's review and sternly refuted those who have deliberately labeled it the 'Ko Wen-je clause.'

Huang said that regarding the further specification and codification of detention criteria, the TPP's current proposed amendment is identical to the one proposed by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus in 2008, which was put forward by then-legislator, now President, Lai Ching-te. Huang noted that when then-legislator Lai proposed the relevant amendment in 2008, Ko Wen-je was still a doctor at National Taiwan University Hospital. Therefore, calling the current amendment the 'Ko Wen-je clause' is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

Huang also stated that the regulations concerning search procedures and the right of the searched person to leave freely were not created by the TPP but were provisions from a civilian version of the draft amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, initially recommended to the TPP caucus by the Judicial Reform Foundation. He argued that instead of rushing into political maneuvering, the DPP government should review the recent problems of abuse within the detention system. He urged President Lai to look back at his own statements from when he was a legislator.

TPP founder Ko Wen-je said that when prosecutors initially searched the TPP's central headquarters, the contents listed on the search warrant never appeared in the final indictment or verdict. This, he suggested, means there was no evidence at the time of the search, and the real purpose was to seize mobile phones and computers to find evidence within the data. He cited the case of former Taipei City Government advisor Lee Wen-tsung, who was detained and denied visitation for 11 months and was later acquitted of the profit-seeking charge in the Gyeong Hwa City case, but had already been detained for 11 months.

Ko stated that he is currently wearing an electronic ankle monitor because he is considered a flight risk, but he questioned who made that determination, suggesting it was based on imagination without evidence. Therefore, he believes that judicial reform is essential, and he is merely using himself as an example to point out the problems.

Additionally, when asked about the possibility of Hsinchu Mayor Kao Hung-an returning to the TPP, Ko said that Kao's most important tasks at present are to promote municipal affairs and face her legal cases; political matters are not urgent and important issues should be resolved first.