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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers