In an attempt to prevent a statute that may set back Taiwan's democracy and rule of law, we of the Taipei Society, the Judicial Reform Foundation, the Taiwan Law Society, and the Prosecutors' Reform Association jointly held a press conference on Aug. 18 to criticize the draft versions proposed at the Legislative Yuan's extraordinary session which aimed at forming a special task force to investigate the election-eve shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮). We view these draft statutes as unconstitutional, as their provisions violate the principle of division of administrative powers.
We conveyed our grave concern over these draft statutes during a visit to each party's caucus on Aug. 19. We insisted that the statute must be in accordance with the Constitution; that is, the task force's power must be limited to the legislature's investigation power, ie, investigating political responsibilities only. Even if there is a need to clarify criminal responsibilities, the task force should not have access to both legislative and judicial powers in their investigation. We also stressed that the judicial power to investigate should be free of political influence and its operation should follow the Code of Criminal Procedure in order not to infringe on human rights.
Upon hearing our views, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) caucuses insisted that the task force undertake the criminal investigation responsibility with the help of a special prosecutor. We do not oppose the idea of setting up a special prosecutor to investigate the case. However, in their latest revision, the KMT and PFP rejected our proposal and adopted a highly politicized model in which the task force is made up of party members in reflecting the amount of party representation in the legislature. Further, they have no plan to follow the Code of Criminal Justice. They claimed that they made these changes following thorough consideration of the suggestions made by activist groups. On this point we would like to raise the following points:
First, we do not oppose the tasking of an independent prosecutor to carry out the judicial investigation, but such a practice must be exempt from political influence. Based on this rationale, we oppose the task force being composed in proportion to political party representation in the legislature.
Second, we maintain that the task force should be based on a majority vote system. Every decision must be made based on an absolute majority vote, with two-thirds of task force members attending the meetings and two-thirds of them approving. We find it disappointing that such a system was not adopted in the revised draft by the KMT and PFP.
Third, we demand that the judicial investigation be carried out in adherence to the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect human rights via legitimate legal procedures. Unfortunately, Item 4, Article 8 in their latest revision says that the task force is not subject to the restrictions of the Code. We have to express our emphatic protest of this. In Item 2, Article 8 in the KMT-PFP's first revision of the bill, the task force's investigation is not subject to the confidentiality requirement set in the Code, though such a practice risks the possibility on interfering with the judicial power to investigate. In Item 4 Article 8 of the latest revision, however, the task force is not restricted to the Code.
Originally, we were opposed to the creation of laws for singular incidents. In view of the necessity to find out the truth surrounding the shooting incident and the public's desire for a special investigative task force, we cannot but agree to the formulation of such an organization. We do not, however, oppose the adoption of a special prosecutor system, as long as the constitutional division of power is maintained.
The special prosecutor in our definition is to function based on the majority vote by the task force convener, appointed by the legislature, and six other members appointed by the convener.
According to Article 2 in their proposed statute, the task force has 17 members appointed in proportion to each party's representation in the legislature. So there will be six members recommended by the Democratic Progressive Party, five by the KMT, four by the PFP, one by the Taiwan Solidarity Union, and one by independent lawmakers. In addition, Article 5 states that a task force member can undertake an investigation after obtaining four other members' consent. This means that the task force member can look at whatever cases interest him. He may even go as far as attacking his competitors without being restricted by the Code of Criminal Procedure. To find the truth, doesn't such practice reflect another kind of "White Terror" and set Taiwan's democratic system back 20 years?
This article is a joint statement by the Taipei Society, the Judicial Reform Foundation, the Taiwan Law Society and the Prosecutors' Reform Association regarding the pan-blue camp's revised draft of the bill regulating the March 19 shooting incident investigation task force, ratified on Monday
Translated by Jennie Shih
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS