The reappearance of National Assembly Speaker Su Nan-cheng (
The KMT is supposed to put the official seal on his expulsion today, and the way in which it deals with him will bear watching, as it will provide concrete evidence of the extent and nature of the divisions within the party's ranks over the issue of the term extension.
Yet what is probably more disconcerting is that no one knows how the National Assembly itself will be dealt with, or by whom. Su, after all, is just one bad apple from an incredibly rotten barrel. And despite all the outcry about how the Assembly has become a "constitutional monster," its outrageous, underhanded decision to extend its own current term stands intact.
It is an offense to many people's sensibilities that such an act, which patently violates the principles of constitutionalism, should have been allowed to take place. Unfortunately, the fact is that the Constitution does not set any clear limits on the power of the Assembly to amend it. This is a basic defect in Taiwan's constitutional order. Although it is obvious to all that the ultimate solution to this dilemma is the abolition of the Assembly, until that can be done, a way has to be found to rein in the "monster."
Apologists for the deal-making process that produced the extension have argued that it was a necessary price to pay to achieve the goal of converting the Assembly from a body primarily composed of district representatives to one selected by party proportional representation, as a step towards abolition. Plausible though this strategy may be, however, the price it forces all of Taiwan to pay cannot be said to be acceptable.
The key problem is that, although it has been widely promised that the Assembly will behave itself for the remainder of its extended term, there is no way for anyone to enforce this pledge. If the amendment is allowed to stand, what is to stop the Assembly from deciding later to extend its term again? Public outrage, as has been shown, is a feeble weapon against politicians who do not have to worry about re-election. Worse scenarios are possible, such as use of the Assembly to thwart the policy of elected politicians, even presidents. Then it would truly earn the "monster" label.
On Thursday, one possible solution was initiated, when legislators filed a petition for the Council of Grand Justices to rule on the constitutionality of the Assembly's action. Over the past few years, the Grand Justices have established their power of judicial review of legislation and executive regulation. But there is no precedent for striking down an action of the Assembly. This case, therefore, represents an important milestone in Taiwan's democratic development.
The Grand Justices should agree to hear the case, so that they can establish guidelines for the Assembly's proper functioning. By establishing clear rules of the game, they would be extending the scope of checks and balances in Taiwan's constitutional system, reducing the political free-for-all at the top. Of course, until the political decision is taken to move toward abolition, the Assembly does have a constitutionally mandated role, but that role should not be permitted to expand infinitely.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath