Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: Finding truth through committee

Holding a majority in the Legislative Yuan, the pan-blue camp's legislators yesterday ignored public opinion and vetoed the Cabinet's request to reconsider the "March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute" (三一九槍擊事件真相調查特別委員會條例).

Under such circumstances, the nation's political situation can hardly stabilize, in light of the vitriolic confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties.

Every Taiwanese person wants to know the truth behind the mysterious shooting of the president and vice president on the eve of the presidential election, and no one is opposed to a detailed investigation of the case. The problem is this: the organization responsible for the investigation has to be reasonable, and the stipulation of the statute regarding the investigation can violate neither the Constitution nor basic human rights. Only then will the "truth" reached by the committee be credible and convincing. Otherwise, any investigation that violates the principles of justice will become a political disaster.

After the bill creating the Special Committee was rammed through the legislature by the pan-blues last month, the Taipei Society, the Judicial Reform Foundation, the Taiwan Law Society and the Prosecutors' Reform Association all issued comments, saying that many articles in the statute violate democratic and constitutional principles.

In the discussions during this time, both the pan-green and pan-blue camps agreed that the recommendation of committee members based on proportional party representation in the legislature would facilitate political interference; and everyone was worried that the different parties would try to meddle with the truth investigation committee, not in an effort to uncover the truth about the shooting, but rather to turn the committee into another platform for inter-party struggles in the run-up to the year-end legislative elections.

In addition, we all know that proportional representation means that the pan-blue camp will hold the upper hand in the committee, since they have a legislative majority. That would mean that the initial organizational structure starts out as unfair.

How could that be acceptable to the green camp? To begin with, truth cannot be decided through proportional party representation. Small wonder that legislators from the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union at an early stage declared that they would never participate in this truth investigation committee, which would make it purely a "blue committee" made up of members of the pan-blue camp.

Why not simply set up a commission that is not susceptible to political manipulation? After all, systems are more dependable than individuals.

Chen Jui-jen (陳瑞仁), a spokesman for the Prosecutors' Reform Association, said that the special committee statute states that the committee is not bound by the the State Secrets Act, Trade Secrets Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws, a situation which is clearly in violation of the Constitution.

He went on to say that proportional representation would make prosecutors tools of political parties, and also violate the judiciary's right of judgement. This not only violates the five-branch separation of powers embodied in the Constitution, but turns prosecutors into weapons in a struggle for power between political parties.

If the committee said that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) staged the assassination attempt, he might not only have to step down, but would most likely be sent to prison as well. Yet if the judgement of the special committee does not convince everyone, then Taiwan is likely to descend into chaos.

Is this the real aim of the pan-blue camp?
This story has been viewed 2190 times.