We must all follow the law, but what should we do if the laws themselves violate the law? Should society follow bad laws, or should we take more active measures to avoid having bad laws erode the foundations of the rule of law?
Taiwan is struggling to come to terms with a bad law, the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (
Although the Legislature's laws are legitimate, legislators are not legal experts, and the Legislature's work is often more a matter of politics than of law. Laws thus sometimes reflect political clout instead of a just legal system. The 319 statute is a clear example of politics taking precedence over law.
Despite the Judicial Yuan and many others' warnings that the statute violates the Constitution and encroaches on judicial powers, the pan-blue camp brusquely overturned the Cabinet's request that the legislature reconsider the statute. Nor did they pay any attention to the president's comments written on the law; instead they formed the committee, putting us on the road to constitutional disaster.
Taiwan's constitutional system allows the Council of Grand Justices (
A better way is the government's idea of handling the case according to Article 31 of the Law of Interpretation Procedure For Grand Justices (
There are several major reasons why the Constitutional Court should quickly deal with the statute.
First, there are no limitations to the special committee's exercise of power, which potentially violates human rights.
Second, the special committee enjoys administrative, judicial, and monitoring powers; this violates the principle of separation of powers.
Third, the fact that the special committee report will take precedence over any legal decisions means that political clout will influence the investigation, undermining the rule of law.
Fourth, it will be difficult to resolve damage done by this law should it later be declared unconstitutional.
Given the controversy surrounding this committee, the Grand Justices were wise to call a session of the Constitutional Court on September 14. If normal procedures were followed, this constitutional controversy would snowball. There may be a conflict between the committee's operations and the decision as to whether the presidential election should be invalidated, which is to be announced by the Supreme Court on November 4.
The Council of Grand Justices should work toward a speedy interpretation of whether the wording of the statute is constitutional or not, before the nation is damaged by this controversy.
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