On Friday the Council of Grand Justices handed down a ruling relating to the "state affairs fund" case in which President Chen Shui-bian (
The ruling confirmed that the president enjoys executive privilege to not divulge state secrets in the form of verbal testimony or material evidence.
Chen and Wu had alleged that part of the "state affairs fund" had been for purposes involving state secrets, and that they could not divulge some of the information and documents requested by prosecutors to establish that the "fund" had been used for the purposes they claimed.
With Friday's ruling, prosecutors may now be unable to prove that the "fund" was misappropriated by members of the first family.
The basis for the ruling was Article 52 of the Constitution, which articulates presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. But it does not articulate presidential privilege against divulging state secrets, which is likely to give opposition parties space to criticize the justices.
But if one considers the intent of the Constitution in regard to presidential immunity, the additional privilege confirmed by the ruling is not only consistent with the spirit of that immunity but also necessary to round out the purpose of Article 52.
The basis for presidential immunity from prosecution is the need to ensure the political stability of not only the office of president but the country as a whole. If the president can be prosecuted too readily or even thrown in jail during his term, he could not perform his duties as the Constitution and the mandate of the electorate require.
Similarly, if the president can be forced to divulge state secrets during a judicial investigation or in the process of being prosecuted, then the national interest could be jeopardized.
Most would agree that state secrets should not be divulged. However, most might also harbor concern that the president has the power to decide what constitutes a state secret and thus what should be outside the purview of the courts.
However, if the president should not decide on such matters, the question follows: Who should?
Some people might say the courts should decide. However, if judges are given this authority, they will have the power to decide on essentially political questions. This would be at odds with the principles of democracy and the separation of powers, and tip the balance in favor of the judiciary.
For the same reason, such power should not be in the hands of the legislature.
An additional concern is that the "secret" information so frequently handed to legislators has the tendency to become headline news within days. Based on the record of its current line-up, the ability of the legislature to maintain the secrecy of anything of any import is weak at best.
Friday's ruling may not please everyone. But it has a sound basis -- legally and practically speaking.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry