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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS