On the eve of the special municipality elections on Nov. 27, Sean Lien (連勝文), son of former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), took to the stage in Taipei County to stump for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) city councilor candidate Chen Hung-yuan (陳鴻源). Without warning, a gunshot rang out and Sean Lien fell, seriously injured. The actual motive for the shooting is still being investigated, but what is certain is that the incident has cast a shadow over politics and elections in Taiwan.
Some people have mentioned that this represents a failure of security, while others believe it should be interpreted as a -politically motivated shooting. There is also the theory that Sean Lien was the victim of mistaken identity and the bullet did not have his name on it at all. Whatever the truth is, because a shooting took place where people had gathered on the eve of the election, and given Sean Lien’s high political profile, the incident was immediately reported around the world. The BBC and Hong Kong media outlets gave it quite in-depth coverage. As a result, the incident has taken on both political and security implications.
Since this was a political shooting, it was immediately clear that it could not be treated in the same way as any other criminal case. The investigators had to have a degree of political sensitivity, otherwise the investigation could have attracted external complications and even blown up into a political storm. Following the shooting, it was important for the government to ensure the basic facts of the case were publicly announced in the shortest time possible, to make sure the respective camps did not get the chance to put their own unfounded political interpretation or spin on the course of events.
To this end, the National Police Agency went into overdrive and called a press conference on the night of the shooting to announce the facts as they understood them at the time. That was certainly commendable. It was also the first stage in the police’s standard operational procedure when dealing with crimes of a political nature. The point is, it is of utmost importance to announce the “facts” of a case such as this as soon as possible to reassure the public and, in particular, the politicians.
Why? Because people are given to interpreting any given set of facts differently, depending on an individual’s political views.
This leads us to the prickly issue of scientific evidence, which, should it be lacking, could allow the truth as presented to be compromised or turned on its head. This in turn could well lead to needless controversy.
In the case at hand, this is what we know: Sean Lien was present at the campaign headquarters of a Sinbei City councilor candidate and allegedly during the evening was shot at close range by the suspect Lin Cheng-wei (林正偉), who apparently carried a handgun. The victim was shot in the face and is currently being treated in the emergency room of National Taiwan University Hospital. That’s basically it.
The evidence amassed includes video recordings of the shooting, photographs of the crime scene, the gun and a number of bullets. There was some other evidence, but the police decided to hold it back, concerned that it had been compromised in the chaos and was therefore unreliable. That is something they can address over the course of the subsequent investigation.
Then comes the huge question mark dangling over the motive. At first, the alleged shooter said he had shot the wrong man. This claim needed clarification — to be corroborated or dismissed — at the time, something that the police neglected to do, failing to interrogate witnesses on the scene. People tend to confuse details, especially of events that happened in the heat of the moment, so it would have been important to compare witness accounts. Without evidence, it is not easy to be absolutely sure he really did shoot the wrong man.
Reading about the alleged assailant in the newspapers and finding out about his past brushes with the law and his history of drug use, the idea that he, indeed, shot the wrong man, rang true at first. However, doubts crept in the next day because of the conflicting witness accounts. Of course, in the absence of any concrete evidence, it is difficult to be sure of the true motivation for a crime.
One has to make up for the lack of concrete evidence by looking at the suspect’s telephone records and checking out the people he has had dealings with in the past. Even then, it is by no means certain that the police will be able to establish the fact that he had been after another target.
In other words, the motive for any given crime can sometimes get obfuscated in the dust kicked up by the conflicting clamor that immediately follows. Differing opinions from all corners are not helpful and can lead to political or electoral controversy.
Political shootings have happened in the past and they will likely happen again. The obvious example would be the March 19, 2004, shooting of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), which caused a huge amount of public debate. Sean Lien’s shooting constitutes another major political crime played out in full view and has caused quite a stir itself.
In order to avoid any unnecessary controversy, I suggest the police set up a standard operating procedure for when such announcements need to be made, so that the details pertaining to a case commanding this much attention conform as much as is possible to the scientific evidence and that this evidence is sufficiently incontrovertible to avoid any unnecessary confusion.
Yang Yung-nane is director of National Cheng Kung University’s political science department.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
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