Last month, the Council of Grand Justices ruled that some of the powers vested in the 319 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee were unconstitutional. Undeterred, the committee released a 150-page report on Monday on the March 19 assassination attempt. Many legal experts and academics have deplored the fact that this absurd and ridiculous report has cost the legislature a great opportunity to establish a model for its use of judicial investigative powers under the Constitution.
Since the committee was established last October, judicial reform groups and academics have criticized the legislation that was forced through by pan-blue legislators, pointing out that some of the powers granted to the committee by the statute were unconstitutional. The constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices last month said that many articles relating to the structure of the committee were flawed and unconstitutional.
After the grand justices denied the legal status of the committee and the legitimacy of its operation, the committee members should have immediately sought to amend those articles with which the grand justices found fault. The committee could then have exercised the judicial investigative powers properly granted it by the legislature. It would then have been in a position to make a thorough investigation of an incident that shook the nation.
Given that the legislature is dominated by the pan-blue camp, passing such amendments would not have been difficult. But, incomprehensibly, the committee chose not to try to repair its legal standing. Instead, despite its illegitimacy, it went ahead and finished its "investigation report."
Acting in such an irresponsible and offhand manner, the committee repeatedly failed to convince anyone of its impartiality, its thoroughness or its accuracy. Doesn't this undue haste in releasing a report seem to substantiate the doubts raised when the committee was first formed that its purpose was to serve as a political bludgeon rather than to seriously investigate the shooting?
The report is absurd, ludicrous even because the committee, working under conditions in which it was unable to conduct a proper investigation, departed from the principle of letting the evidence speak for itself, and instead constructed a "reasonable explanation" of how the shooting could have been used to manipulate the election. Committee spokesman Wang Ching-feng (
Since the committee lacks legitimacy, and failed to present either adequate human or material evidence, how can it have the temerity to demand the recall of the president? Given the absurdity of this situation, not even pan-blue legislators who helped create the committee in the first place are willing to back its findings. The committee members have only managed to make fools of themselves.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the claims in the committee's report that the shooting was staged, and the "reasonable explanation" of how the incident was used to manipulate the election, are unconvincing. It is possible that the committee members simply wanted to get their task over and done with and came to their conclusions without much thought.
Whatever the rationale, the committee members failed to establish a precedent for giving investigative powers to the legislature. An unconstitutional group has issued an irrelevant report with no legal standing. The only thing the report could possibly achieve is to console some members of the pan-blue camp.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS