After the Council of Grand Justices's interpretation of the Constitution (Ruling 520) was released on Jan. 15, the ruling has become the subject of various interpretations. One controversy is this: does the ruling sufficiently explain the constitutionality of the Executive Yuan's decision to halt construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (
While the ruling does not explicitly state that the Executive Yuan's act was unconstitutional, it clearly states that "as ceasing the implementation of a legally-mandated budget has the function of changing the direction of the administration or important policies, [taking such an action] without the participation of the Legislative Yuan is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate to have the legislative branch participate in policymaking."
The question then becomes: is inconsistency with the constitutional mandate a violation of the Constitution?
Looking back at the rulings of the Council of Grand Justices over the years, we discover that "inconsistency with the constitutional mandate" is not an innovative, ambiguous term. Rather, it appears frequently in various rulings. Ruling 384, for example, states that certain articles of the regulations on the prosecution and eradication of "black gold" are "inconsistent with the mandate" of Article 8 of the Constitution. In Ruling 392, certain articles in the criminal prosecution law are also deemed "inconsistent with the mandate" of Item 2, Article 8 of the Constitution. Ruling 443 also finds regulations on circumstances in which males eligible for military service may leave the country to be "inconsistent with the mandate" of Article 10 of the Constitution. Do those who hold that the Executive Yuan's decision was not "unconstitutional" because the ruling does not explicitly state it to have been so, also think that the above-described rulings did not find the relevant regulations or laws unconstitutional for the same reason?
The biggest difference between Ruling 520 and most of the previous rulings is that the past rulings typically state when the relevant regulations or laws lost their legal force. In Ruling 520, although the justices also state that the decision to halt construction was inconsistent with the constitutional mandate, it does not clearly state whether the decision thereby loses its legal force. The ruling simply goes on to state that the decision was procedurally flawed and the Executive Yuan must make up for the skipped procedural step immediately. As a result, the ruling has led to another controversy over whether construction of the plant should be resumed first.
It is by now meaningless to continue debate over whether the language of the ruling indicates "unconstitutionality." As the Council of Grand Justices has made its interpretation, the remaining issues must be dealt with through political means. We can only hope that both the opposition and ruling parties will be able to demonstrate the magnanimity of political statesmen, and leave behind the baggage of political hatred and ideology. Attach top priority to the welfare of the people, and the protection of the constitutional order. Begin inter-party negotiations as soon as possible and exercise collective wisdom in the resolution of political standoffs. This would be a result that most Taiwanese would be happy to see.
Professor Wang Yeh-li is chairman of the Department of Political Science of Tunghai University.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry