Minister of Justice Chiu Tai-san (邱太三) has suggested that the Special Investigation Division (SID) be abolished, 10 years after its establishment, which would return the investigation of high-level cases to prosecutors. Just as the division was born of political considerations, it is now being put to bed because of political considerations.
Ten years ago, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was still in power as the special state affairs fund case was exposed. The handling of the case was handed to the High Prosecutors’ Office’s corruption investigation center.
At the time, the opposition, of course, questioned the center’s determination to investigate the president.
After members of the pan-green camp later reported former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), the center investigated Ma in connection with his handling of special allowance fund during his time as Taipei mayor, in the end initiating public prosecution against Ma. Someone then suggested that the corruption investigation center be abolished and that the SID be set up under the supervision of the supreme prosecutor to investigate the head of state and the presidents of the five branches of government.
The SID was the result of public mistrust of the prosecutorial system and their wish for a strong system that would, without fearing the powerful, take on privileged politicians and big corporations. Because the SID was given the best prosecutors and the most resources and was not subject to external interference, political parties hoped to be able to control it and use it to attack their opponents.
Still, they are unhappy to see the SID investigate their own people and always complain that the SID only investigates the pan-blue or the pan-green camp, depending on which camp they belong to.
Unable to please anyone, the SID has become the target of public criticism.
Precisely because political interference has been too forceful, several prosecutors-general have had to step down. Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明) was impeached by the Control Yuan and Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) was convicted of leaking classified information, so it is a bit surprising that it survived for so long.
In fact, both the prosecutorial system and the relevant laws and regulations allow prosecutors at the courts of both the first and second instance — the district prosecutors’ offices and the High Court Prosecutors’ Office — to conduct investigations, and there is certainly no need for the SID.
Furthermore, there is an overlap between the powers and jurisdictions of the SID and the prosecutors at the courts of first and second instance, which violates the principle that two agencies should not have the same duties. In addition, the SID is on the front line of any investigation and is in direct contact with the civilians and officials who are involved in a case. If the quality of an investigation is compromised, the whole prosecutorial system is beyond help.
Regardless of what one thinks of the SID, it is the target of public criticism. Both the blue and green camps want it abolished, meaning that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) will most likely do so.
From the establishment to the abolition of the SID, the government’s and politicians’ mistrust of the judiciary and the prosecutorial system has remained. Legislators and the general public might have had expectations of a beautiful future for the division, but these expectations were no match for the destruction wrought by reality. The past 10 years have shown how difficult it has been for the division to operate, and we would surely do well to rid ourselves of such an institution.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers