Forensic scientist Henry Lee (
Lee publicly stated that his report is wholly based on evidence, but the the evidence so far has been insufficient. Lee has consistently said that politics would not influence his investigation, but he also insisted that the shooting was not an assassination attempt on the president and vice president. His reason for that conclusion is that had it been an assassination attempt, the shooter would have used a more powerful weapon.
Are these conclusions from evidence in Lee's supposed "investigation," or deductions based on his personal experience? In departing so much from the rules of evidence, he is in danger of losing his standing as a forensic expert by entering the biased arena of politics.
First, Lee did not make clear what he meant by "political assassination." Surely any violence directed against the president or vice president is "political"? And shooting at either of these persons -- whether the assassination is successful or not -- must surely constitute an attempt at "political assassination"? So in denying that the March 19 shooting was a political assassination attempt, what is Lee's proof? By being so unclear he provides further ammunition for endless political debate over the incident and makes it more difficult to discover what actually happened.
Second, Lee stated even before the investigation that the shooting was not a "political assassination" attempt. Now, after his "investigation," he remains fixed in this opinion. This leads us to ask whether an expert investigation was even required. Much time, effort and money has been spent but ultimately the report has done nothing to settle matters.
In making this "political judgment" Lee has left his realm of expertise and shown his naivety. If Lee said that the caliber of the handmade gun was not powerful enough to make the shooting an assassination, then do we even need to consider whether it was politically motivated or not?
To say that the weapon was insufficiently powerful is a purely subjective judgement, and it still needs to be proven. According to the chief medical officer of the Chi Mei Hospital who treated Chen, the president came within a few millimeters of suffering a serious or even fatal injury. Clearly the weapon was powerful enough to kill the president, and the only reason it failed was good fortune.
Lee also said that the assassin must have had some experience and knowledge of guns and bullet design. In other words, he was a professional. To hit Chen, who was traveling in a motorcade, was no easy matter, and to call this person a "pro" is probably an understatement. Also, by rejecting the use of a conventional weapon and opting for a modified one for such an assignment, he was clearly showing his exceptional skill.
By making Lee misjudge him, the assassin has succeeded with a modern version of the burglar Arsene Lupin outsmarting supersleuth Sherlock Holmes.
I have nothing to say against Lee's expertise in his field. But now that he has stepped into the arena of political commentary, the holes in his argument are so obvious that he is damaging his professional reputation. He can do what he likes with his reputation -- but it is a far more serious matter to muddy the waters of this important investigation.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing