KMT Questions Prosecutor's Anti-Bribery Letter to Village Chiefs: 'Intimidation Under the Guise of Legal Guidance?'

The Kuomintang (KMT) held a press conference today (20th) titled 'Is the Prosecutor's Letter Intimidating Village Chiefs? The DPP Government Must Not Use Judicial Power for Political Intimidation,' attended by KMT Ethics Committee Chairperson Chang Ya-ping, lawyer Hsiao Chi-yun, and lawyer Hsu Hao-chun.

Hsiao Chi-yun stated that while the KMT does not oppose judicial agencies conducting anti-bribery election outreach, such guidance must clearly explain legal risks and the boundaries of illegality. Otherwise, lawful exchange activities may be mistakenly perceived as carrying legal risks, potentially leading people to halt all exchanges to avoid trouble. He warned that if the guidance fails to clearly define the specific circumstances that constitute actual violations, it could cause public panic and a 'chilling effect' among those who have participated in exchange programs.

Chang Ya-ping noted that anti-bribery efforts are routine before local and national elections, and it is understandable for prosecutors to send letters to grassroots village chiefs or candidates. However, reviewing past records, such letters from prosecutors have not previously included additional guidance. He questioned why this time the prosecutor's letter, under the guise of 'outreach,' includes explanations about cross-strait exchanges and travel to mainland China, raising concerns about whether it is 'using outreach as a cover for intimidation.' He urged the two lawyers to further clarify the legal and procedural implications of this approach.

Hsiao emphasized that the guidance refers only to the illegality of including support for specific candidates within cross-strait exchanges, 'not that all exchange activities are inherently illegal.' Yet this distinction has not been clearly articulated. Given the public's trust in judicial authorities and their authoritative nature, people may wonder, 'Should I stop all exchanges to avoid unnecessary trouble?'

Under the framework of the 'Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area,' exchanges are not entirely prohibited; in fact, increased communication channels and more frequent, normalized interactions are encouraged. However, this letter from the judicial authorities may mislead the public into believing all exchanges should be banned. Therefore, 'when issuing such letters, judicial agencies must clarify the boundaries more precisely' to prevent confusion about legal risks associated with exchanges.

Hsu Hao-chun shared his personal experience participating in cross-strait exchange programs, noting that many people in Taiwan have taken part in such activities. 'Anyone who has attended knows we were never asked to support specific candidates,' he said. His group included members with differing political views, yet they were treated equally, with activities focused on sightseeing, visiting historical sites, and sharing views on local culture and cuisine—no political activities were involved.

Hsu pointed out that labeling such participation as potentially violating the 'Public Officials Election and Recall Act' or the 'Anti-Infiltration Act' is 'very strange, as we have never encountered such situations.' He criticized the guidance material for being just one page, 'resembling a command,' which implicitly discourages participation in exchange programs. He stressed the need for detailed Q&A formats to inform village chiefs about possible scenarios during activities, what must absolutely not be done, and 'why such activities can still be attended without breaking the law.'

He warned that many people already participated in exchange tours this summer. If they are now told their participation could make them potential prosecution targets, 'this would indeed create a real chilling effect,' causing significant anxiety, especially among youth and students.

Hsu also reviewed past cases where village chiefs were prosecuted or convicted, finding that 'those actually convicted were caught receiving money locally.' However, the current outreach materials fail to clarify such specifics. He questioned: 'Why isn't this clearly explained? Why isn't this distinction made clear?'