Truth be told, the refusal of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) to exercise their power to ratify the members of the Control Yuan goes further than merely amounting to a "constitutional crisis," as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has claimed.
This behavior is indeed unconstitutional. The reason is that, according to Article 7 of the recent constitutional amendment, Control Yuan members are to be "nominated by the president, and ratified by the Legislative Yuan."
Now, the president has already made his nominations, only for the legislature to neglect their right of consent, contrary to the dictates of the Constitution.
At the moment, everyone's attention is being taken up by the issue of the national examinations, for according to the Control Act (監察法), the lack of Control Yuan members prevents national examinations from going ahead. This is why the government are referring to the situation in terms of a constitutional crisis, or a "constitutional vacuum." If there really must be talk of a constitutional crisis, we should discuss the fact that only four of the five powers invested by the Constitution of the Republic of China are actually being applied, and blame for the fact that the fifth is being neglected by the legislature can be put on the shoulders of the KMT and PFP.
How can these two parties, whose members have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution -- treat it as an outmoded, useless document -- and still claim to be "followers of the founding father of the nation?"
In all honesty, unconstitutional behavior is nothing new for the KMT and PFP of late, a good example being their insistence on pushing through the 319 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), a KMT member, who denies there is a constitutional crisis, claimed that "the participation of Control Yuan members in the national examinations is not specified in the Constitution. It is a legal stipulation, so constitutionality is not at issue."
But is this really the case? To have the legislature neglect to use their right to consent, and for the legislative speaker to have the gall to sit back and watch the Constitution being abused, is really just too much.
Even worse, when Wang says that the participation of Control Yuan members in the national examination is a legal matter is surely tantamount to openly claiming that the Control Act is irrelevant.
It is not to be forgotten that the Control Act was passed through its third reading in the legislature, and if the legislature is to treat it in this way, shouldn't we be concerned that other laws, too, will be accorded such contempt?
Tseng Yuan-chuang (曾永權), executive director of the KMT's policy committee, said, "according to the Constitution, Control Yuan members are responsible for disciplining, impeaching, and investigating, but have no right to supervise the national examinations -- and as far as the Examination Invigilation Act (監試法) is concerned, Control Yuan members have no power in this area."
On the contrary, the Examination Invigilation Act does, in fact, list this as being one of the responsibilities of the Control Yuan. How otherwise would they be able to carry out their duties of disciplining, impeaching and investigating?
This disregard of the Constitution, and of laws, is creating a crisis for the Taiwanese democracy, and the KMT and PFP are criminals in both the face of democracy, and of history.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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
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
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