President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) invited the heads of the five branches of government for tea last week.
After their meeting, an announcement was made that a special investigative commission for the March 19 gun shooting would be established to investigate the assassination attempt on the president and vice president, so as to enhance government credibility, pacify controversies, facilitate social stability and reinforce solidarity.
Chen indicated that the panel for the commission will be comprised of 11 to 13 members and chaired by Control Yuan President Frederick Chien (錢復), who will enjoy sole discretion in selecting commission members. A certain percentage of the commission members will be lawmakers, while others will be from the Control Yuan. Chen also emphasized that the operation of the commission should transcend all interests without any interference and be independent, impartial and transparent.
The commission will not be placed under the Presidential Office or the executive branch. Moreover, the commission should operate in compliance with the Constitution and in a manner that respects the powers of the Judicial Yuan and the Control Yuan.
Since the March election, the pan-blue camp has been unwilling to accept its defeat and has therefore requested a recount of the ballots and an investigation of the shooting of the president and the vice president, as well as the triggering of the national security mechanism by the government in the aftermath of the shooting. These have been the three main demands as part of its strategy to overturn the result of the election.
To eliminate the social unrest brought by the pan-blue protests after the presidential election, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) complied with each and every such request although these requests were groundless and not supported by any real proof. First and foremost, the pan-blue camp accused the government of keeping a large number of the police force and military personnel from voting by triggering the so-called national security mechanisms.
However, according to statistics released by the Ministry of National Defense, the number of soldiers on duty on the day of the presidential election did not surpass the number in the past. This demonstrates that no military officers or soldiers were prevented from voting because of the triggering of the national security mechanism.
How is it possible for those in command of the armed forces to know about the political orientation of its soldiers? Regardless of how many were on duty on that day, it is hard to accurately measure how the number impacted the votes garnered by any particular political party. How did the pan-blues come up with the conclusion that a greater number of soldiers on duty that day were more likely to favor them over the pan-green ticket? Obviously, the accusation made by pan-blue camp is based on wishful thinking and part of its irrational reaction to the election result.
Without any substantial proof, the pan-blue camp also accuses the Chen administration of tempering with the ballots. They made exaggerated and defamatory allegations based merely on street rumors and wild speculation. However, to resolve the controversies, Chen also accepted the pan-blue's request for a recount of all the ballots. After the nationwide recount was completed, but before the verdict is out on the election lawsuit, pan-blue leaders have again seized the opportunity to spread rumors about having discovered widespread tampering with ballots. They went as far as to say that so long as the judiciary is impartial, a re-election will certainly take place.
The failure of the Chen administration to solve the ongoing problem of election controversies proves that it is unable to create harmony and peace. The pan-blue camp continues to see the Chen administration as an unlawful government.
While Chen's promise to establish an investigative commission may be well-intended, it is easy to conclude that in the future, so long as the result of the investigation does not live up to the pan-blue camp's expectations, they will never accept it. There will be no relenting of the animosity between the ruling and the opposition camp. Under the circumstances, Examination Yuan President Yao Chia-wen (姚嘉文) said it best when he wondered"what can possibly be accomplished by the establishment of an investigative commission?"
As expected, after Chen announced the establishment of the commission, the pan-blue camp responded with a wave of criticism and condemnation. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Secretary-General Lin Fong-Cheng (林豐正) requested compliance with three principles; the commission has to be within the existing government structure and genuinely functional, rather than mere "window-dressing," and the Chen administration must not play the role of both player and umpire.
Lin said what the people need is not just a "rubber stamp" commission, but the truth. Pan-blue media went as far as to accuse Control Yuan chief Chien of playing a power game for accepting the seat of chairman for the commission, implying that there had been under-the-table maneuvering in exchange for favors. People First Party (PFP) Legislator Lee Ching-hua (李慶華) even accused Chien of destroying his own image.
Before the investigative commission proposed by Chen even began to function, it has already been rejected by the pan-blue camp, deliberately destroying its impartial image and credibility. It is not hard to tell that the pan-blues are simply paving the way for a denial and rejection of the result of the investigation by the commission.
Four months of investigation by police and prosecutors, as well as forensic examination by US forensics expert Henry Lee (
Within the pan-blue camp, however, there are still people pretending to be experts and speaking about the shooting in order to generate more groundless speculation. In terms of the investigation, what is missing is not professional talent but mutual trust. As a result, those who believe the March 19 shooting was a pan-green conspiracy will always believe this, and those who don't believe it will not likely be convinced otherwise. Plus, the establishment of the investigative commission will invade the powers of the police and prosecutors and contradict the principle of closed investigations.
In addition, many major criminal homicide cases that took place during the KMT's authoritarian era, such as the murder of Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) and his family, the murder of visiting professor Chen Wen-cheng (陳文成), the murder of Peng Wan-ju (彭婉如), former director of the DPP's department of women's affairs, and the murder of Taoyuan County magistrate Liu Pang-you (劉邦友), remain unsolved. No investigative commission was ever established for these cases.
Frankly speaking, if the March 19 shooting is a case capable of being solved, then the police and prosecutors will surely be able to solve it. The establishment of the investigative commission serves no real purpose. If this is a case in which police and the prosecutors cannot solve, then it does not help to install such a supervisory organ on top of the current investigation team.
The March 19 shooting was a very serious national security incident. How to enhance the protection of the heads of state, capture the gunman, and unearth the real motive of the shooting are the most urgent tasks.
Unfortunately, while the pan-blue camp is also pushing the government the solve the case, its efforts are not concerned with national security, but the unfavorable outcome of the election.
The pan-blue belief that Chen staged the shooting in order to win sympathy votes does nothing but heap blame on Chen -- the victim of the shooting. Doing so has only made the truth even more elusive, while the level of animosity between the ruling and opposition camps has gotten worse.
In launching the investigative commission, Chen may have the best of intentions, hoping that the truth may be found and peace brought to the ruling and opposition camps. But the shooting incident is, after all, a criminal case, which should be left in the hands of the police and prosecutors. It should never be reduced to a bargaining chip for political compromises.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS