The Constitutional Court delivered a half-right decision last Wednesday. The court got it right in striking down several provisions in the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (
Categorizing the committee as an agency of the legislative branch of government appears to be an important premise of the court's reasoning regarding the statute's flaws. The court argues that the committee should not have any prosecutorial function because a legislative agency cannot possess that without violating the separation-of-power principle.
Justice Hsu Tzong-li (
The distorted statutory construction indicates the court's effort to avoid invalidating the March 19 statute in its entirety. The statute created an unchecked and unbalanced agency and did away with critical guarantees of due process of law. No such institution can be found in other constitutional democracies.
For those who do not turn a blind eye to realpolitik, it is apparent that truth-seeking is a pretext for the legislation's real intent. The law really aims to advance the pan-blue camp's partisan interests in "power politics" and "symbolic politics."
With these partisan considerations in mind, there is a paradox between the law's means and its asserted purpose. It is disingenuous to pretend that an inherently biased agency can decipher the truth faithfully and impartially. Partisan interest is by no means legitimate state interest.
A law that pursues partisan self-interest at the expense of the common good should not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Even a lenient review of the means and ends relationship could have helped the court draw out the committee's insidious intent.
Justice Hsu Yu-hsiu (許玉秀) was right in suggesting that the investigation is in essence partisan warfare. By pushing the committee back to the legislative branch, the court's ruling may preserve the principle of political accountability. Under this principle, both parties should be held accountable through the political or electoral process.
Justice Hsu Yu-hsiu's partially concurring opinion suggests the court considered the statute a legitimate exercise of legislative investigation, as it purports to examine whether the election's integrity was compromised by the March 19 assassination attempt.
Electoral integrity surely deserves our greatest concern, but baseless conspiracy theories do not. The court failed to distinguish between allegations based on reasonable grounds and those founded on conspiracy theories. Legislative investigation in the absence of any reasonable cause surrenders reason to the conspiracy-mongers. This is exactly the cause and consequence of the statute.
In the US, the Warren Commission also dealt with conspiracy theories surrounding John F. Kennedy's assassination. But the Warren Commission endeavored to refute, not to entertain, conspiracy theories about communist involvement in the assassination. Did the March 19 committee also take a critical stance against conspiracy theories regarding the assassination attempt on Chen?
The most disturbing implication of the court's ruling is its partial and implicit legitimization of the committee's McCarthyesque witch-hunting. Equip the legislature with the information it needs, but don't legitimize the abuse of investigative power as constitutional. Had the court fully realized the harm caused by the pan-blue's conspiracy-mongering, it probably would not take the statute's asserted purpose at face value.
The court perhaps feared it didn't have enough prestige or power to confront Chen, or worried that a wide interpretation of unconstitutionality could backfire. But even the committee and legislators from the pan-blue camp do not appreciate the court's mercy. They accused the court of interfering with the legislation. Far from ending the controversy, the court's ruling actually invites further confrontation.
Despite the flawed reasoning, the court's ruling deserves some applause for its correct conclusions. The court may have misinterpreted the meaning of the statute, but it did not distort the constitutional principles involved.
Now that the issue is returned to the political process, it's time for us to reconsider whether we should keep tolerating this lingering statute. The most effective way to restore reason from the vicious culture of the conspiracy theorists, as we should know by now, is to denounce this unjust statute once and for all. Sadly, this is the last thing we can expect from our paranoid legislature.
What the court failed to accomplish is now left for a more sober public deliberation and a more determined political movement.
Su Yen-tu is a juridical science doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School.
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