December 28, 2020
On the afternoon of September 19, 2020, Ms. Huang, almost 60, a volunteer for the Legal and Tax Reform League, held a sign in an empty lot in Zhubei City, questioning a chief enforcement officer of a branch of the Administrative Enforcement Agency, "How much bonus did you receive by handling the Tai Ji Men case, NT$100,000, NT$1 million, or NT $10 million?” At 5:40 p.m., Ms. Huang and several other volunteers were surrounded by about 20 police officers. The police officers checked their identities and then left, but at about 6:10 p.m., several police officers returned to the scene. At this time, Ms. Huang did not have anything in her hands and was waiting for her children to drive her home. The police, without telling her the reason, went through a bag on the ground, which did not belong to Ms. Huang, but to a male volunteer, took out a sign and forced it into Ms. Huang's hand, saying that she was caught red-handed. They then took her away to the Liu-Jia Police Station without telling her what crime she had committed. Ms. Huang tried to clarify, but she was frightened and deterred by the police.
During the interrogation, the police officers yelled at her, making Ms. Huang so panicky that she could hardly breathe. It was only during the transcript making that the police informed Ms. Huang that she was accused of intimidation (Article 305 of the Criminal Act), public insult (Article 309 of the Criminal Act), defamation (Article 310 of the Criminal Act), and harm to personal data (Article 19 of the Personal Data Protection Act). Ms. Huang was interrogated until approximately 12:30 a.m. and then transferred to the Hsinchu District Prosecutors Office. The prosecutor imposed a restriction on her residence, and then she was released after 1:00 a.m. After being released, Ms. Huang was so scared that she was quivering, could hardly stand, and almost fainted. She was rushed to an emergency room nearby by her family. When the physician asked her questions, Ms. Huang was incoherent and unable to respond, only muttering "I didn't commit any crime . . . Why are the police doing this to me?” After treatment, Ms. Huang was out of the woods, but she still had physical and mental symptoms such as flinching, loss of appetite, and involuntary crying. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and had to be hospitalized.
Why would a chief enforcement officer sue Ms. Huang for defamation and public insult? Ostensibly, the reason seemed to be that Ms. Huang challenged the officer's receipt of a bonus. However, a review of the constituent elements of the charges revealed that Ms. Huang had not committed libel or public insult at all, and was not an offender. According to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, anyone who, with the intent to disseminate to the public, accuses or relates anything that would bring disrepute to another person is guilty of libel; however, if what is stated can be proved to be true, it is not punishable. According to Article 311 of the Criminal Act, anyone who, in good faith, expresses an opinion shall not be punished if the opinion is an appropriate comment on a matter that is subject to public criticism. The accuser in this case is a chief enforcement officer, and it was revealed in the media that her personal seal was affixed to an official letter to the Shih-lin Branch of the Administrative Enforcement Agency about the allocation of the credits for job performance for enforcing the Tai Ji Men case. This is a matter of public interest, not a private matter, not a matter of private morality, not a matter of confidentiality or personal privacy, and indeed a matter that can be subject to public comment. The accuser has been honored as an "exemplary civil servant" for pursuing tax evasion and has been publicly recognized by the media as the "Queen of Enforcing Cases of Back Taxes" and is nationally known. There is no way to argue that her name and position are personal and private information; therefore, Ms. Huang didn’t harm the accuser’s personal information. The accuser was able to receive a bonus in accordance with the “guidelines for the awarding of bonus for enforcement performance by the Administrative Enforcement Agency and its branches under the Ministry of Justice” as well as in accordance with the "detailed regulations for the awarding of bonus for enforcement performance by the Administrative Enforcement Agency and its branches under the Ministry of Justice.” Therefore, the message on Ms. Huang's sign is publicly available information and does not constitute libel at all. Moreover, Ms. Huang only quietly held a sign by a roadside without saying anything about the enforcement officer, and the sign only asked about the amount of her bonus, without any malicious comment, and without insulting her character, reputation or dignity. Therefore, Ms. Huang certainly did not commit a public insult.
Ms. Huang's freedoms and rights guaranteed by Article 11 (People are entitled to freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publishing.) and Article 16 (People are entitled to the right to petition, appeal and litigation.) of the Constitution have been directly taken away, which is a resurgence of the white terror.
The arrest of Ms. Huang as a criminal has caused a public outcry, and many legislators, legal scholars, and Hsinchu County council members have criticized the police for excessive law enforcement. What made the police go out of their way to defy the constitution and deprive a civilian of her freedom? Is it the bonus? The current law does not provide police officers with a bonus. Some scholars argue that the benefits of the bonus are far greater than the numbers revealed to the public, so those with vested interests are willing to act in defiance of the law and threaten the volunteers.
The reason why the officials are so secretive about receiving bonuses is that the bonus system has accumulated a great deal of public discontent over the past few decades. There are two major unreasonable programs that have caused public resentment: the first is the bonus for tax collection, and the second is the bonus for administrative enforcement performance. This system allows a fixed percentage of the amount of money collected through the enforcement to be awarded to the officials involved. This has prompted officials to use all means to create false cases in order to get a bonus. This is a direct incentive for officials to use all kinds of illegal means to seize people's property and directly compete with the civilians for their money. Such a system creates conflicts between the government and the people and makes people lose trust in the government. The victims hate the bonus system. The general public opinion is that "it is shameful to receive such a bonus," but the officials regard it as a reward, which is contrary to the public opinion.
The current amount of bonuses for enforcement performance and bonuses for tax collection that is listed in the budget is not alarming, only a few hundred million Taiwan dollars, which is not a high percentage of the overall payroll, but the damage to the industry, especially the small and medium-sized enterprises, is far greater than the amount listed in the budget. The bonuses are just a bait to entice the grassroots tax officers to issue unreasonable and illegal tax bills and to lure the grassroots administrative enforcement officers to distort the law to conduct unjustified enforcement of the people's property. Of course, the victims are not willing to be taken advantage of, so they would turn to some related litigants, council members, mobsters, retired or incumbent officials, or scholars who work for the government as spokespersons, are subservient to those in power, and promote and defend the government's policies. These people have formed a “bonus chain,” stealing people's property and making hundreds of times more than the bonus money on the table.
Many enforcement officers only care about the bonus money and disregard the law and would blatantly rob the people of their property to enrich themselves. There are voices against such practices from enforcement officers. In 2007, Wu Chun-Ching, an enforcement officer of Shih-lin Branch of the Administrative Enforcement Agency, euphemistically pointed out in his report "A Study on the Introduction of Entrepreneurship in Administrative Enforcement" (pages 36-37) that goal setting should take into account both "quantitative" and "qualitative" objectives as objective setting should not be limited to "quantifiable" objectives, such as the basic levy amount of each enforcement unit, the levy amount of each enforcement office's auction of real estate, the rate of return on investment, and the number of cases closed, etc. He stressed that other important performance measures, such as service quality, approval rating, and public trust in the executive branch, should be the main objectives of the executive branch, even if they are not easily quantifiable. He also pointed out the shortcomings of this practice of pursuing figures for the purpose of getting credits for job performance. For example, enforcement officers would disregard the feelings of the public or abuse their power to carry out enforcement, which in turn tarnishes the image of the Administrative Enforcement Agency, added Wu.
In 2007, Chen You-wei, an enforcement officer of Hua-lien Branch of the Administrative Enforcement Agency, bluntly criticized the bonus system in his report “A Study on the Promotion of Administrative Enforcement and the Bonus for Job Performance” (p. 8): The ultimate goal of the branches of the Administrative Enforcement Agency is to achieve the purpose of Article 19 of the Constitution, which is to achieve fairness in taxation; bonuses, credits for job performance, and detention are only means to achieve this end, not the purpose of administrative enforcement. Chen questioned the legitimacy and decency of using the money forcibly extracted from obligors as a source of money for future social welfare. He also questioned whether the amount of money extracted from such enforcements was really enough to compensate for the social problems and increased social costs caused by the government's improper implementation.
Chien Lin Whei-Jun, a former member of the Control Yuan, one of the Taiwanese government agencies that oversee controlling abuse by public officers, said, "The bonus should have been abolished a long time ago. With bonuses come incentives to get greedy. As government officials receive public money, they need to do their jobs properly according to their conscience.” The desire for bonuses lures civil servants to be loyal to the “bonus chain” rather than the people, so it is imperative to abolish the bonus system.