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.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under