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
An elderly mother and her daughter were found dead in Kaohsiung after having not been seen for several days, discovered only when a foul odor began to spread and drew neighbors’ attention. There have been many similar cases, but it is particularly troubling that some of the victims were excluded from the social welfare safety net because they did not meet eligibility criteria. According to media reports, the middle-aged daughter had sought help from the local borough warden. Although the warden did step in, many services were unavailable without out-of-pocket payments due to issues with eligibility, leaving the warden’s hands
When former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) first took office in 2016, she set ambitious goals for remaking the energy mix in Taiwan. At the core of this effort was a significant expansion of the percentage of renewable energy generated to keep pace with growing domestic and global demands to reduce emissions. This effort met with broad bipartisan support as all three major parties placed expanding renewable energy at the center of their energy platforms. However, over the past several years partisanship has become a major headwind in realizing a set of energy goals that all three parties profess to want. Tsai
Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesman Randhir Jaiswal told a news conference on Jan. 9, in response to China’s latest round of live-fire exercises in the Taiwan Strait: “India has an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our trade, economic, people-to-people and maritime interests. We urge all parties to exercise restraint, avoid unilateral actions and resolve issues peacefully without threat or use of force.” The statement set a firm tone at the beginning of the year for India-Taiwan relations, and reflects New Delhi’s recognition of shared interests and the strategic importance of regional stability. While India
A survey released on Wednesday by the Taiwan Inspiration Association (TIA) offered a stark look into public feeling on national security. Its results indicate concern over the nation’s defensive capability as well as skepticism about the government’s ability to safeguard it. Slightly more than 70 percent of respondents said they do not believe Taiwan has sufficient capacity to defend itself in the event of war, saying there is a lack of advanced military hardware. At the same time, 62.5 percent opposed the opposition’s efforts to block the government’s NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.6 billion) special defense budget. More than half of respondents — 56.4
RSS