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
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS