When the Control Yuan announced the impeachment of National Security Bureau officials for negligence after some of their subordinates absconded with government funds, it once again exposed the lack of appropriate legislative supervision over the intelligence organizations.
Intelligence is an important tool in the preservation of the nation's survival and interests, but owing to its secretive and unique modus operandi, if intelligence work is carried out inappropriately, the public's human rights will be affected. Because of this, Taiwan's intelligence organization really should accept supervision from legislative organizations, and reduce illegal activities.
Democratic countries mainly divide their supervision of intelligence agencies into three categories: executive, internal and legislative. Executive supervision is conducted from departments positioned above the intelligence agencies, such as the US president's Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) which operates directly under the president, and the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), under the Cabinet.
In the UK, committee chairs are filled by senior officials of the Cabinet Office, and are directly responsible to the prime minister. Members include senior-level officials from the foreign affairs, defense, trade and industry, and finance ministries, as well as the heads of the three main intelligence agencies.
Each intelligence organization basically supervises itself. In the US, for example, every intelligence organization designates an internal "supervisor" that works directly under the agency head. These supervisors perform inspections, supervision and auditing, seeking to prevent abuses.
The CIA is unique because it is the only US intelligence agency where the internal supervisor is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. By law, this internal supervisor must report directly to the president's IOB. In addition, because the numerous intelligence organizations under the US Defense Department, the post of assistant to the secretary of defense for intelligence oversight is set up directly under the secretary.
The UK's Cabinet system uses a permanent undersecretaries committee composed of undersecretaries from each of the different intelligence agencies. The committee operates under the guidance of the JIC, integrating and inspecting the activities of the various intelligence agencies. The UK's intelligence agencies also designate their own supervisors and appraisal committees.
As for the most important supervisory body in the US -- the Congress -- the Select Committee on Intelligence bears the main responsibility for supervising intelligence agencies. Other legislative committees can also supervise intelligence work related to their professional domains.
As for the numerous grey areas of intelligence and counter-intelligence work -- such as the US State Department's numerous "secret operations" -- the foreign and international relations committees of the Congress can de-mand that the department submit a secret operations report.
In the UK, the Intelligence and Security Committee is set up in accordance with the Intelligence Services Act. The committee is formed by members of both the houses of Parliament. Nine of the committee members are appointed by the prime minister. These committees' main functions are to supervise the operations, budgets and administrative matters of the three intelligence departments, the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service and Government Communications Headquarters.
Of course, with regard to confidential intelligence matters, legislators should have the responsibility of keeping things secret. In the US, for example, Congressional committee members and staffers are not allowed to leak sensitive or confidential information to the outside. In addition, the principle of having the lowest possible number of people present at confidential meetings should be observed, in order to reduce, as much as possible, the participation of unnecessary people.
Although the US does not consider the leaking of secrets by members of Congress a criminal act, those who have leaked secrets without authorization may, following a vote, be expelled from their committees -- or even from Congress.
This sort of congressional self-regulation is extremely deserving of consideration by the Legislative Yuan.
Because intelligence organizations enjoy significant special funding, if they aren't subject to systematic regulations, the problem of the "tail wagging the dog" could easily occur. Because FBI founder J. Edgar Hoover controlled a vast amount of information regarding politicians' private lives, he was able to force the executive branch to do his bidding. For this reason, beginning in the 1980s, the US executive branch has constantly strengthened supervision of intelligence agencies. Perhaps this too, can serve as a useful reference for Taiwan.
Taiwan's intelligence and counter-intelligence regulations are rather chaotic. Scattered about in various laws, these regulations lack an integrated basis. Thus, as our nation becomes a mature democracy, constructing an intelligence supervisory mechanism is the legislature's unshirkable responsibility.
Lee Wen-chung is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Scudder Smith
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US