Last month, the Council of Grand Justices ruled that some of the powers vested in the 319 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee were unconstitutional. Undeterred, the committee released a 150-page report on Monday on the March 19 assassination attempt. Many legal experts and academics have deplored the fact that this absurd and ridiculous report has cost the legislature a great opportunity to establish a model for its use of judicial investigative powers under the Constitution.
Since the committee was established last October, judicial reform groups and academics have criticized the legislation that was forced through by pan-blue legislators, pointing out that some of the powers granted to the committee by the statute were unconstitutional. The constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices last month said that many articles relating to the structure of the committee were flawed and unconstitutional.
After the grand justices denied the legal status of the committee and the legitimacy of its operation, the committee members should have immediately sought to amend those articles with which the grand justices found fault. The committee could then have exercised the judicial investigative powers properly granted it by the legislature. It would then have been in a position to make a thorough investigation of an incident that shook the nation.
Given that the legislature is dominated by the pan-blue camp, passing such amendments would not have been difficult. But, incomprehensibly, the committee chose not to try to repair its legal standing. Instead, despite its illegitimacy, it went ahead and finished its "investigation report."
Acting in such an irresponsible and offhand manner, the committee repeatedly failed to convince anyone of its impartiality, its thoroughness or its accuracy. Doesn't this undue haste in releasing a report seem to substantiate the doubts raised when the committee was first formed that its purpose was to serve as a political bludgeon rather than to seriously investigate the shooting?
The report is absurd, ludicrous even because the committee, working under conditions in which it was unable to conduct a proper investigation, departed from the principle of letting the evidence speak for itself, and instead constructed a "reasonable explanation" of how the shooting could have been used to manipulate the election. Committee spokesman Wang Ching-feng (
Since the committee lacks legitimacy, and failed to present either adequate human or material evidence, how can it have the temerity to demand the recall of the president? Given the absurdity of this situation, not even pan-blue legislators who helped create the committee in the first place are willing to back its findings. The committee members have only managed to make fools of themselves.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the claims in the committee's report that the shooting was staged, and the "reasonable explanation" of how the incident was used to manipulate the election, are unconvincing. It is possible that the committee members simply wanted to get their task over and done with and came to their conclusions without much thought.
Whatever the rationale, the committee members failed to establish a precedent for giving investigative powers to the legislature. An unconstitutional group has issued an irrelevant report with no legal standing. The only thing the report could possibly achieve is to console some members of the pan-blue camp.
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