The debate in the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan Thursday was the fifth of its kind in Taiwan's history, as the representatives from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the March 19 Committee fiercely debated the DPP's request for a temporary injunction of the committee's operations while waiting for a constitutional interpretation.
On the one hand, the DPP's representatives believe the flawed legislation process has turned the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (
On the other hand, the committee's representatives believe the dispute falls within the legislature's remit, and should thus be handled by the legislature, because the judicial system has no right to interfere. Because the law does not allow the Grand Justices to call for an injunction, they should overrule the DPP's request.
Nevertheless, we have to point out that, according to legal experts, as many as 13 of the statute's 19 articles may violate the law and the Constitution. It is thus evident that when pan-blue camp legislators first passed the statute, they only wanted revenge for the miserable presidential election defeat. The statute is nothing but a product of the political struggle between the pan-blue and pan-green camps.
We believe that another reason political struggle has transcended all else in the establishment of the committee is that the statute stipulates that the 17 committee members should be appointed proportionally to party representation in the legislature, and that appointments shall be based on representation during the current legislative session. With the pan-blue camp holding a legislative majority, pan-blue supporters will always be in the majority in the committee. It is of course unthinkable that the pan-green camp would accept such an unreasonable arrangement.
Most Taiwanese do not believe that the committee will conduct a fair and just investigation into the truth of the shooting. This can be seen both in the severe criticism being voiced in political talk shows and the many legal and academic organizations criticizing the preposterousness of the statute. Faced with such massive public pressure, the blue camp immediately submitted a revised version of the statute, and are preparing to pass it before the end of the current legislative session. So if they knew all along, why did they go through all the fuss of having the original version passed?
We believe that if the committee members and the pan-blue legislators all agree that amendments have to be made in terms of the legality of the committee itself, they should cease all activity straight away and wait for the interpretation given by the Grand Justices on the statute that governs it. It would not be too late then to resume the investigation. In this way they could avoid risking further public anger, and take the pressure off of public officials who, in recent days, have faced the dilemma of whether or not to co-operate with the committee.
The Grand Justices have the weighty responsibility of protecting the integrity of the Constitution, and we sincerely hope that they will seize this opportunity and arrive at a satisfactory conclusion regarding the statute in question. This being done, everyone concerned, whether they belong to the blue or green camp, will have to respect this interpretation. The decision will act as a benchmark for future amendments to the law. With this, Taiwan will have a model of democracy and the rule of law that every country controlled by a constitutional government should have.
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