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.
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