The most often criticized aspects of the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (
Although the statute emphasizes that "the committee must consist of 17 members drawn from outside the legislature or any other government agencies," this design further highlights its political nature. The committee simply has too many members. It is very doubtful that a committee that large will be able to operate efficiently.
Second, a member can begin an investigation if his or her proposal is reviewed and agreed upon by just four other members. This design may create big problems during the committee's operations.
Additionally, since members are recommended by political parties, some of them may be swayed by the pan-blue or pan-green camps during the investigation. It is very doubtful that the committee will be able to achieve a result acceptable to both sides.
The committee's investigative procedures should also be in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 8 of the special committee statute states that "the Committee, in the execution of its powers, is not limited by the Code of Criminal Procedure or other laws." Is it then a mechanism of political investigation, of judicial prosecution or a little bit of both? Its status is indeed questionable.
If the committee wants to play the role of a judicial mechanism and define itself as an "independent prosecutor," its exclusion of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a clear violation of the protection of defendants' human rights during criminal prosecution. These basic rights are ensured by the nation's legal system. Will an investigation outcome that is not in accordance with procedural justice truly convince us?
Will constant procedural disputes in the future damage our quest for the truth? And will this bad precedent encourage legislators to set up other new committees beyond the scope of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute people, in violation of our fundamental freedoms? These questions deserve careful consideration.
The committee's investigation must itself respect both judiciary and procedural justice. But the committee violates the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution, and its operation will be very difficult.
According to opinion poll results published by the Taiwan Thinktank in August, although about 48 percent of respondents support the creation of a truth investigation committee, about 66 percent of them oppose the committee membership being based on parties' proportion of legislative seats.
It is thus evident that people do long for the social reconciliation that can only be found by determining the truth of the assassination attempt on the president and vice president. But we also hope that an investigation will be implemented in a fair, just and open way -- rather than simply becoming a microcosm of the struggles among parties in the Legislative Yuan.
The truth can only be obtained through a strict and professional investigation that respects both judicial and procedural justice. And only a result obtained in this manner will be accepted by the entire public.
Kao Yung-cheng is the executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation. Tseng Chien-yuan is the vice director of the department of legal and constitutional study at the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past