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 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS