In a bid to gain the public’s trust, the Banciao District Prosecutors’ Office has made public all information on the investigation into the shooting of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Committee member Sean Lien (連勝文) in the hope that the public would accept its handling of the case, as well as its conclusions. However, many people continue to disagree with its finding that Lien was shot by mistake. Some even think this could affect the KMT in future elections. There are three reasons why many have found its conclusion unacceptable.
First, Taiwan’s criminal justice system is too far removed from the public sphere. This system, led by prosecutors’ offices, has long, and perhaps excessively, stressed its legal expertise, thus gradually alienating itself from the public. This may also have to do with the judiciary’s neglect of communicating with the public, or a consequence of judicial reform that overemphasizes judicial independence at the cost of attention to its connection with society, or the need to avoid lobbying due to the sensitivity of criminal cases.
Theoretically, the principle of social fairness and justice demands that investigations by police and prosecutors be free from political influence or interference. While most prosecutors and police officers hew to this principle, there is a gap between their understanding of the investigation process and their conclusions in the Lien shooting case and that of politicians and many members of the public. As a result, the case clearly reflects the distance between the experts in the criminal justice system and the lay members of the public. How to bridge this gap will depend on the joint efforts of the criminal justice system, politicians, academics and the general public.
Second, the difficulty in defining the character of the shooting: The question of whether it was it a non-political, a politically related, or an overtly political shooting remains controversial and a conclusion remains elusive. “Non-political shooting” refers to an incident in which a civilian is shot. “Overtly political shooting” refers to an incident where the shooting is politically motivated, while “politically related shooting” falls somewhere between the two, because the motivation is not directly political, but related to a financial or other dispute.
If it is a non-political shooting, an analysis of how prosecutors and police have handled non-political shootings in the past shows that they generally focus on the suspect and the weapon, and the case is considered to be solved if they can prove that the gun was used in the shooting and that it was shot by the suspect. That would earn the police a reward. Most people remain suspicious of the conclusions because prosecutors and police are treating Lien’s shooting as a non-political shooting.
Third, it is difficult to collect evidence to prove that a case is politically related. The current difficulty lies in the investigation results, since prosecutors and police have no evidence to prove that the shooting was politically related. According to reports in the media, it seems impossible to track the source of the gun. The investigation into the political connections of the alleged shooter, Lin Cheng-wei (林正偉), merely only showed he might be involved with the vice speaker of the New Taipei City (新北市) Council, the KMT’s Chen Hung-yuan (陳鴻源), and Chen’s campaign manager, Tu Yi-kai (杜義凱). However, it is hard to know the depth of his political connection.
In other words, in this particular shooting, many people want more information as to what was going on behind the scene, rather than just information about what happened at the scene of the shooting. This information would include whether Lin, nicknamed “Horse Face” (馬面), has ties to Lien, Chen, Tu or other political families and whether the source of the gun can be traced. Perhaps prosecutors and police can take their investigation in this direction, or perhaps higher political connections are required to clarify Lin’s political connections.
If we do not pay greater attention to the problems raised by the Lien shooting, the public could lose their confidence in both prosecutors and the police, and maybe even in the government. Such a case must be handled with extreme caution.
Yang Yung-nane is a professor of political science at National Cheng Kung University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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