這裡是文章的英文翻譯：

• Judicial System Infiltrated and Utilized by Political Forces:

  • The disproportionately high number of individuals from the "blue-white" political camps implicated in recent judicial cases has raised concerns about the channel being "tainted blue," leading to suspicions that cases involving the ruling "green camp" are rarely exposed or prosecuted. This implies that the judiciary is selectively handling cases as a tool to suppress political opponents.
  • Cases involving the "green camp" appear to be suppressed; apart from a few instances (such as Legislator Wang Ting-yu (王定宇)), most have not seen judicial action, creating a peculiar "mathematical phenomenon" where "blue-white" camps face issues, but the "green camp" does not.
  • The entanglement of the judiciary and politics has become more pronounced since the Kao Hung-an (高虹安) case. There are suspicions that the ruling party is using the judicial system to eliminate political opponents, even "wishing to exterminate all nine generations of their kin," by exposing every corruption issue of opposition parties to consolidate its own support.
  • When people strive for Taiwan's progress and justice (such as Huang Kuo-Chang (黃國昌)), the judiciary is used to "block him" and impede his work, especially when political stances differ, the law becomes a tool of obstruction.

• Prosecutor System and Law Enforcement Malpractices:

  • Taiwan's prosecutor system lacks effective oversight mechanisms, leading to a constant stream of abusive prosecutions and an extremely high tolerance for "unscrupulous prosecutors."
  • Prosecutors often leverage the principle of "non-disclosure during investigation" to keep case information confidential, making it difficult for external parties to supervise their investigative processes and methods, allowing them to act as they please behind closed doors.
  • Within the prosecutor's office, there is a culture of "education" that involves intimidating defendants and coercing confessions. Senior prosecutors teach newcomers to "speak very loudly" so that defendants confess out of fear, rather than based on facts or evidence.
  • Prosecutors with insufficient evidence appear even more aggressive, which is an abnormal phenomenon, indicating their attempt to compensate for the lack of evidence with an intimidating demeanor.
  • During interrogations, prosecutors are accused of operating under a "presumption of guilt," aiming to secure a confession from the defendant rather than seeking the truth. They may even misinterpret laws to defendants or directly state threatening remarks like, "I will definitely indict this case; it's up to you whether you confess."
  • The promotion and evaluation system for prosecutors overly prioritizes "case performance" (indictment/conviction rates) rather than fairness, justice, or people's rights. This leads many prosecutors, for the sake of performance, to mold "pure and naive" newcomers into "thuggish prosecutors" or "unscrupulous prosecutors."
  • For prosecutors, "wrongful convictions" are not a problem; instead, they are opportunities to prove, "I can handle cases that others cannot," thereby earning commendations and exacerbating judicial injustice.

• Inhumane and Opaque Judicial Interrogations:

  • Interrogation rooms are cramped, yet prosecutors often deliberately shout at high decibels, even adjusting microphone volume, causing pain to the ears of the parties involved. This is questioned as a form of "coercion to confess."
  • Courts and prosecutor's offices should promote "live-streamed" public trials to strengthen public oversight. The principle of public trials originated in the ancient Bao Qingtian (包青天) era and should be made public with technological advancements. Courts should not be afraid of public scrutiny.
  • Prosecutor's offices often refuse to make interrogations public, citing reasons like "affecting investigation" or "collusion and destruction of evidence." However, it is precisely because of their "frequent resorting to dirty tricks" that public oversight is needed.

• Huang Kuo-Chang's Legislative Interpellation Accused of "Forgery" Case:

  • Huang Kuo-Chang received three summonses, with the same prosecutor handling all cases. However, when inquiring about the charges with the court clerk before the hearing, he was only told, "You'll know when you get here," which prevented him from preparing. This reflects a common tactic used by prosecutors to prevent defendants from preparing.
  • After the hearing, Huang Kuo-Chang (黃國昌) looked grim-faced, avoiding discussion of his own case but repeatedly mentioning the Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) case. This led outsiders to speculate that he might have been subjected to disrespectful treatment or felt immense real-world pressure during the interrogation.
  • Legislators should enjoy "immunity from liability" for interpellation in the Legislative Yuan. Even sharp remarks or inaccurate information should not constitute defamation. In the past, legislators have even flipped tables, sworn, or spoken falsehoods during interpellations without facing criminal prosecution.
  • Huang Kuo-Chang was the first person in Taiwan to publicly play a video recording of an improper interrogation in the "Xiao Ming-yueh (蕭明岳) wrongful conviction case" in the Legislative Yuan. His aim was to define the "red line" for "improper interrogation" and promote judicial progress.
  • However, Huang Kuo-Chang was accused of "forgery" for using a "demonstration tape" to discuss "improper interrogation" during a legislative interpellation. This charge is defined as "an unauthorized person producing false documents, causing harm to the public or others," which is inconsistent with Huang Kuo-Chang's original intention for the interpellation. This move is seen as judicial suppression of elected representatives performing their duties, using the law to obstruct those striving for Taiwan's political progress.

• High Bail Rate for Fraud Cases:

  • The recent high bail rate for fraud cases indicates potential irregularities or problems in how the judicial system handles these types of cases.