Our society often displays a blind worship of the American experience and of political stars. As long as an issue has been awarded the "American experience" label and an authoritative recommendation by a political heavyweight, it seems there is no need to look into the details of what the American experience actually entails. Nor is it necessary to study the differences between the Taiwanese and American experience. This leaves us unable to absorb knowledge from the experiences of other countries and leaves public debate reminiscent of marketing slogans on home shopping networks.
Recent mentions of the US Warren Commission in discussions about investigating the Tainan shooting are a good example of this. The "truth investigation commission" currently sought by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance cannot be compared to the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of US president John Kennedy, for three crucial reasons.
First, the Warren Commission was set up following an executive order by then-US president Lyndon Johnson, who also decided on the commission members. The findings of the investigation were also to be reported to the president. The investigation was entirely administrative in character. Although members included Supreme Court justices and members of Congress, all ac-cepted the president's invitation to serve on the commission in a private capacity and did not represent the Supreme Court or Congress. Nor were they nominated by those institutions.
When Congress later passed special legislation giving the commission the right to summon witnesses and investigate evidence, the summons capacity was administrative in nature, as provided for by US law. The measure was aimed at strengthening the commission's functions and did not change its administrative character.
The KMT and the PFP legislative caucuses now want to pass special legislation setting up an investigative commission led by the president of the Control Yuan. They propose that five members should be recommended by each party caucus, and that the Control Yuan recommend four members. The commission's findings would be reported to the Control Yuan and Legislative Yuan.
This is different from the Warren inquiry as it extends the reach of the Legislative Yuan and the Control Yuan into administrative and judicial investigation. If we really think that the Warren Commission is a worthy example, then it should be President Chen Shui-bian (
Second, the man suspected of assassinating Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, had already been killed when the Warren Commission was established. If Oswald had no accomplices, then the judicial investigation would have had nowhere to begin. The Warren Commission therefore did not intervene directly in the ongoing investigation, thus lessening the risk of a conflict with the judiciary. Despite this, a year after the Warren Commission presented its report, there were still prosecutors who did not agree with its finding that Oswald acted alone. They investigated and brought charges against another suspect who was later found not guilty by the court.
The assassination attempt on Chen is currently being investigated by prosecutors. If the Legislative Yuan sets up a special investigative commission, it will result in grave interference in the prosecutors' investigation, and may affect a future verdict in the case. In addition, the KMT and the PFP claim that the shooting resulted in an unfair election, a claim that is also being investigated by the court. If a special commission is set up and its findings differ from the court's verdict, would this not create even fiercer confrontation and distrust in our society?
Third, the Kennedy assassination did not involve a political struggle between the government and the opposition, while the shooting of our president has become the main focus of inter-party struggle. Given this, I fear that setting up a special investigative commission that could violate the rule of law would only intensify political conflict.
As former US chief justice Earl Warren said in Watkins v. the United States in 1957, a government cannot expose for the sake of exposure. Constitutionalism dictates that any government investigation must comply with the principle of the rule of law. A silent truth will not speak up for itself. We rely on legitimate legal procedures in the quest for truths that the public can believe in.
I fear that if we abandon the rule of law while shouting about finding the truth, we will only start another wave of political struggle and deteriorating trust.
Wong Ping-yun is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under