Although it has been a long time since People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
Compromise in itself is nothing bad, but if it is an awkward compromise whose only goal is to join the two parties, then it is no longer a compromise, but rather becomes a matter of hypocrisy or even appeasement.
Take the cross-strait peace advancement bill, for example. No one opposes cross-strait peace, but anyone who has a basic understanding of constitutional matters and takes a look at the bill must conclude that the legislature must not pass this piece of legislation.
Why? Because it violates the Constitution and therefore is not a law that should be passed in a country adhering to constitutional politics.
There are both public and party considerations behind the PFP's draft. The public motive is that since the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) accession to power, it has taken a passive approach to cross-strait issues, with lots of slogans and little action. Therefore, since the executive has done nothing, the legislative branch has to take over.
The party's selfish motive, however, is Soong's interest in the cross-strait relationship. After his presidential failure, he became even more bent on leaving his legacy in the area of cross-strait relations. The bill is thus entirely about etching Soong's name into the annals of history.
The legislature's attempt to pass laws to counteract the executive's inaction may be constitutional, but if the legislature expands its powers to the point where it replaces the executive, it violates both constitutional powers and the spirit of representative democracy.
One example of this is the peace advancement bill's special cross-strait negotiation council. It would be so powerful that it could sign a cross-strait peace agreement, as well as educational, financial and free trade deals, agreements with non-governmental organizations and so on, making it almost omnipotent.
The problem is that the peace advancement bill would become a permanent law, and not an ad hoc law such as the 319 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute. Ad hoc laws have an expiry date, whereas permanent legislation is for ever.
That means that even though the shooting committee could substitute the executive for a time, it would be dissolved as soon as the "truth" was exposed. If cross-strait peace is not achieved, however, the special cross-strait negotiation council would forever usurp the powers of the executive.
What's more, this concentration of cross-strait policymaking, legislative, executive and judicial power in the hands of 17 specially appointed members in a single institution with special powers is no different from an oligarchy. No matter how impotent the DPP government, there surely is no need to move toward oligarchy.
The peace advancement bill would turn Chen's "five noes" and the controversial "1992 consensus" into law, and this shows a lack of intelligence. The DPP will never accept that there is such a thing as the "1992 consensus," so how could they let it be written into a law?
Unless the KMT can distance itself from the PFP on the peace advancement bill issue and from Soong, it will never be able to free itself from Soong's influence. Furthermore, the Grand Justices will probably deem it unconstitutional anyway. KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Wang Chien-chuang is the president of The Journalist magazine. Translated by Perry Svensson
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
President William Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) May 20 second-anniversary address was not just a routine policy review; it was damage control. US President Donald Trump’s remarks — that he did not want to see anyone move toward independence and that the delivery of a major Taiwan arms package could depend on the progress of US-China relations — unsettled Taiwan’s public and created an opening for opposition parties to question whether Taiwan was being treated as a bargaining chip in Washington’s dealings with Beijing. Lai’s speech was designed to close that opening. The address covered the expected ground: sovereignty, cross-strait relations, defense spending,
RSS