On Thursday, the Legislative Yuan's efforts to pass a constitutional amendment for congressional reforms experienced a setback due to an unexpected provision in the bill submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People's First Party (PFP). The Taiwan Solidarity Union Party (TSU) refused to support the bill because the provision gives the Legislative Yuan the power to impeach the president with the votes of two-thirds of its members.
The original language of the provision in the bill had said that the president may be impeached upon petition by the congress with the Council of Grand Justices and a verdict entered by the Constitutional Court. Not every presidential form of government follows the US system in vesting such an enormous power solely in the legislative branch -- for example, in South Korea the Constitutional Court must reaffirm impeachments by Parliament within 6 months. No consensus has been reached within Taiwan as to whether the "semi-presidential" form of government should be changed into a purely "presidential" system. A decision needs to be made first in that regard before all the associated supplemental mechanisms can be incorporated into the Constitution to ensure proper checks upon and balances of government powers, including possibly limiting congressional power to impeach the president.
On the other hand, in considering whether to grant such power solely to lawmakers, one must keep in mind Taiwan's unique political culture. Against a backdrop of political polarization and strong emotions, Taiwan's Legislative Yuan -- or, more precisely, the pan-blue opposition parties -- is unlike the legislature of almost any other country in terms of how far it will go to attack the ruling party and the president, regardless of the price this country may have to pay as a whole. One simply does not have the confidence that these politicians will use this power sparingly and cautiously.
A case in point was the effort of the pan-blue opposition to recall the president during the first year of President Chen Shui-bian's (
In comparison with impeachment, recalling the president is a much more difficult task, requiring a motion from one-fourth of legislators, support from two-thirds of legislators, and approval by over one-half of the electorate in a popular referendum. With much lower requirements for congressional impeachment, the chances of such power being abused by the Legislative Yuan cannot be overlooked.
South Korea's experience teaches us what a hefty price may be paid by the country as a whole if impeachment power is not used sparingly and with caution by a hot-headed opposition that enjoys a legislative majority.
In the wake of the impeachment by the South Korean parliament, that nation's stock market at one time declined by almost 5 percent and the country became the center of international attention overnight. Fortunately, the South Korean Constitutional Court acted as a safety valve and overturned the impeachment. If any kind of impeachment power is to be given to Taiwan's congress, such safety valves will surely be required.
An even more important lesson for Taiwan's opposition is that the South Korean opposition party lost its legislative majority because of popular outrage at its impeachment of the president. So any such power should only be exercised in a responsible manner.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers