The composition of the "action cabinet" has changed again, as the resignation of Minister of Justice Liao Cheng-hao was accepted on July 13. At the same time, the cabinet asked the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) to transfer the acting director of the Bureau of Investigation (BOI), Cheng Chuan.

The simultaneous transfer of two high officials sparked a chain reaction of changes at the upper levels of the MOJ. The original cause was a political controversy sparked by an investigative report on allegations that Cheng had committed a sex crime. But the incident calls for broader thinking about issues that are becoming public as a result of democratization in Taiwan.

The whole controversy began with allegations that Cheng Chuan had molested a young woman. In early June, on the eve of Cheng's formal confirmation as BOI director, National Assembly member Lai Ching-lin called a press conference to make the following claims: On September 13, 1986, Cheng went to France to visit a friend, Yang Wan-ching. After Cheng's departure, Yang's daughter showed signs of psychological disturbance. Over a two-year period, she was in and out of mental health institutions, and had to abandon her MA program. Lai said that Yang had made a report to French police at the time of the incident claiming that Cheng had molested his daughter, and last February sent a direct appeal to ROC President Lee Teng-hui. Lai said that after repeated appeals to government agencies failed, Yang asked him (Lai) to make a public statement.

After the press conference, Minister of Justice Liao Cheng-hao immediately ordered the formation of a task force to investigate the allegations. The task force interviewed Cheng, and flew to Paris.

Lai's press conference generated a storm of controversy. Cheng denied Lai's claim, and insisted that he was performing qigong massage on Yang's daughter, and absolutely did not commit or intend to commit any sexual crime. He also claimed that the whole incident was manufactured to attempt to remove him from his position.

The investigation report was made public on July 8. It said that when Cheng and Yang's daughter were alone, Cheng was doing qigong massage, during which Yang's clothes were rolled up, and Cheng came in contact with her breasts, thus confirming that there had indeed been inappropriate behavior. Moreover, the report also said it was a mistake for Cheng to not immediately reply in detail to the first news reports of the allegations; after ten days of reports, the reputation and morale of the BOI were seriously damaged. The investigation found no direct evidence to verify the Yang family's claims of criminal impropriety or intimidation by Cheng.

Both sides called the report biased and unacceptable. The following day Cheng called a press conference to claim that the reopening of this old case on the eve of his formal confirmation as BOI director was because he was not Liao Cheng-hao's man, refused to make personnel changes that Liao desired, and had a different focus from Liao. He accused Liao of ignoring and excluding him.

Cheng said that at the high-level conference on crime chaired by President Lee last August 20, National Security Council head Tuan Tsung-wen made a special proposal (the so-called "820 proposal") that the BOI place greater emphasis on intelligence and internal security monitoring. Though the proposal was approved over a year ago, Cheng claimed that Liao has done nothing to implement it. He accused Liao of manipulating public instruments for personal gain, bypassing channels and directly ordering field agents to gather intelligence, monopolizing "special informants," and ignoring instructions from Premier Siew to change the emphasis of BOI work and to give top priority to the passage of the proposed communications monitoring law. He said that this showed a lack of respect for administrative ethics.

Liao issued a statement in response that same evening. He denied all allegations of abuse of power, and called on those who accused him of a lack of administrative ethics to examine their own behavior. With regard to Cheng's claims regarding "special informants" and the "820 proposal," which had not previously been made public, Liao accused Cheng of revealing secrets for personal gain. Not only were Cheng's motives suspect, said Liao, but his behavior violated the principle that civil servants should protect government secrets.

The exchange of fire between these two officials transformed the intensifying conflict from a sex-crime case into a direct confrontation between the BOI and MOJ. Meanwhile, the cabinet was dissatisfied (on procedural grounds) with the press conference Liao called on July 8 to release the investigation report, because the report had not yet been officially delivered to the cabinet at that point.

On July 10, As the controversy was intensifying, Premier Vincent Siew returned from a trip to Southeast Asia. Siew met with Liao on the 13th and told him that he was "unsuitable" for his post; Liao immediately tendered his resignation. The cabinet also asked the MOJ to transfer Cheng to another post, citing his "unsuitablity" as well. Meanwhile, seven high-ranking officials, including MOJ political vice-minister Chiang Hao and standing vice-minister Hsieh Wen-ting, asked to resign or retire. Supreme Court Justice Cheng Chung-mo took over at the MOJ, and BOI chief secretary Wang Kuang-yu became BOI director.

Most observers approved of Siew's decisive handling of the case as maintaining the team spirit of the cabinet. Though Liao later made a strong statement attacking Siew and Control Yuan President Wang Tso-yung was also critical, the incident was settled in a short time due to Premier Siew's actions. However, the problems which the incident exposed with regard to control of investigation and intelligence activities deserve our attention.

Soochow University associate professor of history Liu Hsu-ming says that intelligence activities should be free of political interference, and avers that the scandal may provide an opportunity for the depolitici-zation of Taiwan's intelligence apparatus. Chang Chung-yung, a professor in the Department of Security at the National Police College, argues that besides strengthening internal supervision in the BOI, there should also be a legislative oversight mechanism, so that the BOI is monitored by both the executive and legislative branches. The Control Yuan is now looking into this, though it may be a case of closing the stable door after the horse has gotten away. Control Yuan member Yeh Yao-peng has petitioned to begin an investigation of Liao and to combine this with the investigation into Cheng's alleged sex crime.

Who should the BOI answer to? What should be the main emphasis of its work-fighting organized crime and drugs, or political tasks like intelligence gathering and anti-subversion? According to the regulations under which the BOI is organized, it does indeed have the duty to "investigate and prevent incidents detrimental to national security and the national interest." But, says former justice minister Ma Ying-jeou, seeing that the BOI has recently scored some big successes against corruption, economic crimes, and white-collar crime, in the future it could devote more attention to these areas. As for opinion in the BOI itself, some there think that law enforcement work should get more emphasis, while others argue that the BOI was never meant to work mainly on criminal matters (otherwise the existing police agencies would have been adequate).

Meanwhile, the National Security Council, responsible for overall direction of national security and intelligence, and which has been rumored to be in long-running conflict with the MOJ over controlling the appointment of the BOI director, has been dragged into the general controversy. What should be the status of the BOI? How should national security tasks be apportioned? Finding the answer to these questions is a major project the government must undertake, and a hurdle that the country must get over in its democratization process.