The Council of Grand Justices has said that it will announce its ruling on the constitutionality of halting construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant on Monday. Although the ruling is not expected to explicitly state whether scrapping the plant was constitutional, it is, however, expected to state directly that, on major events, the Executive Yuan must report to and obtain consent from the Legislative Yuan. On the surface, the ball will roll back into the court of the Legislative Yuan. However, the ruling will establish a constitutionally mandated framework for executive-legislative interplays. The hope of the Grand Justices is to resolve the current political standoff through interactions of goodwill.
What the opposition and ruling parties wish to see is a direct ruling on the issue of constitutionality, so it can be used as a bargaining chip and basis for a no-confidence vote. However, to the justices, their ruling must be capable of ensuring constitutional and political order, so that similar disputes will not be repeated.
The ruling is to define "major events," as well as point out that the implementation of the construction project meets this definition. It will also point out that the Executive Yuan must first report to the Legislative Yuan and obtain the latter's consent on such major events. The ruling is very clear, although it deliberately avoids provocative words such as "unconstitutional." The ruling should have the Executive Yuan make up for the procedural step previously skipped, that is, report to the Legislative Yuan, and leave the final discretion to the legislature, so that the people can discuss an issue that concerns their livelihood and properties -- this is an outcome that saves face for the Executive Yuan, while allowing the Legislative Yuan to make the final call.
The problem is that the DPP has a legislative minority. In view of the strong majority enjoyed by the opposition alliance, it is impossible for the Executive Yuan to stop implementing the budget allocated for the power plant. Responsibility for the loss suffered by Taipower due to the construction halt and the economic decline, as well as the related political and executive accountability must be determined by the Control Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. The ruling in essence emphasizes that major events must be decided only after popular discussions. Even when the Executive Yuan has decided to unilaterally cease implementation, it must make up for the procedural step skipped and leave the issue open for public scrutiny. This is how the present case and all other similar disputes in the future are to be handled.
The ruling won't resolve all the disputes. Both sides will find new battle grounds. The opposition can overturn the Executive Yuan's decision to halt construction, as well as demand that the premier step down along with the minister of economic affairs. The ruling party could delay implementation of the budget, so that the premier would not have to resign. They may even invite opposition party lawmakers to join a new Cabinet. As long as the stage is still around, the show is not over yet. We call on both sides to accept the will of the people and end the dispute as soon as possible.
Behind the current dispute is a deadlock resulting from a minority government. The hot potato tossed into the hands of the Grand Justices is beyond resolution by them. Must the premier step down after he reports to the legislature? This is an issue requiring goodwill between the opposition and the ruling party. The Grand Justices have established the legal and democratic basis for executive-legislative interplay. Actual political maneuvering requires wisdom by all sides.
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