A fundamental principle of politics is Lord Acton's statement that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In order to prevent the corruption of power, there must be a separation of powers and a check-and-balance mechanism. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches (and in Taiwan, the Control and Examination Yuans as well) have powers that are clearly separated and check one another. The theory is simple, clear and indisputable.
After the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) lost the presidential election in March, they were unable to admit defeat and took to the streets to march and protest. Their rage was further ignited after an unsuccessful attempt to overturn the results of the presidential election.
On Aug. 24 the pan-blue camp took refuge in the legislature -- where they have a slim majority -- and passed a bill to create a "March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee" (
The passage of the politically motivated special committee completely violates the separation of powers. If the Cabinet's reconsideration request of the statute is rejected by the legislature and a constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices also fails to overturn the statute, the country will enter a severe constitutional crisis -- and possibly even the end of democratic politics in Taiwan. This is not sensationalism to produce public unrest, but rather a possible reality.
Many academics specializing in constitutional affairs have pointed out that the statute conflicts with the Constitution. The most vigorously criticized parts of the bill appear in Article 8 and 13. Article 8 of the statute states that the Committee, in the execution of its powers, is not limited by the Law of National Secrets Protection (國家機密保護法), Trade Secrets Act (營業秘密法), Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法), and other laws.
Article 13 of the statute says: "If the conclusions of this committee run counter to the facts found in a confirmed court ruling, this would serve as grounds for a retrial."
According to the Constitution, Article 77 states: "The Judicial Yuan (hereinafter referred to as the Judiciary) shall be the highest judicial organ of the State in charge of the trial of civil, criminal and administrative cases, and imposition of disciplinary measures against public functionaries," and Article 78 says: "The Judiciary shall interpret the Constitution and shall have the authority to unify the interpretation of laws and orders."
The Judicial Yuan is the highest judicial body in the nation. Based on the principle of the separation of powers, is it justifiable to have a statute like Article 13? It obviously usurps the powers of the Judicial Yuan.
Furthermore, the statute clearly has an impact on several regulations of the "prosecution unity principle." Article 13 of the statute strongly challenges, or even exploits, the fifth revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure that bolsters the rights and powers of legislative bodies. Given all this, there is little doubt that the committee will trample on the judiciary.
One scholar concludes that the committee obviously has powers that surpass that of the president, minister of justice, state public prosecutor-general and chief prosecutor. According to the current judicial system, a district prosecutor not only has the power to summon the president for a case inquiry, but also has the right to investigate a crime committed by a minister of justice. The special committee's power to command district prosecutors and initiate indictments should be regarded as the real judicial monster.
Also, Article 15 states that the commissioners of the committee should be appointed by the president; if they are not, the appointments automatically come into effect. This obviously usurps the president's power of appointment. And with regard to the funding of the committee, the statute violates the government's constitutional budget power, and this is boldly defiant of the executive powers.
PFP legislator Lee Ching-hua (李慶華) made some bold statements, saying that now is an extraordinary time, and therefore we need an extraordinary law. But all constitutions in democratic countries say that only the president or the prime minister has the right to announce emergency orders or declare martial law, and only in critical situations.
The pan-blue-dominated committee does not even take into account the government's supervisory powers. In Article 4, the statute mentioned that the committee does not accept other government bodies' control and supervision, which pushes the powers of the committee to a higher level.
A well-known political commentator pointed out that the committee's recision of administrative, supervisory, inspection and judicial powers means centralizing powers to itself. What else could the statute be, if not an emergency law? On top of that, the committee incessantly threatens both individuals and groups to get them to accept this law.
Article 8, Section 6 of the statute states that besides overriding national, business and investigative laws, appeals for personal privacy or any other reasons given for evading, delaying or refusing to appear for explanations and assistance are not allowed. In other words, pan-blue supporters of the statute are like fascists, who allow no right for people to remain silent and no right to privacy.
A proverb often heard after the presidential election was: "When God wants to destroy a person, he first drives that person insane." The pan-blue leaders are blinded by their drive to seize power -- which is gradually warping their minds, spirits and senses to a degree of insanity. Their disregard for fundamental principles of democratic politics, and the cynical exploitation of their legislative majority to pass this statute, is a sign of the end of their political careers.
It is disappointing and worrisome to see Taiwan's democracy trampled on by these pan-blue legislators.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor in the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asia Studies at Tamkang University.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS