Wu let the dogs out?
Taiwan, like the US, is a thriving democracy. Neither nation will ever see a winner in the tug-of-war over the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government. A recent case in Taiwan highlights the never-ending power struggle that takes place in a healthy democracy.
Late last month, the Taipei High Administrative Court ordered the suspension of all expansion work at the Central Taiwan Science Park (CTSP), a cluster of high-tech manufacturing plants set amidst lush farmland.
In response to the court injunction, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) offered the following: “It is necessary to respect the court’s judgment, but the most important issue is to keep government policies consistent and coherent and to avoid investors from losing out.”
“The government will undoubtedly abide by the final decision if the outcome is firmly supported by the law,” he added.
I may be a mere US law school student interning in Taiwan for the summer, but even I can tell there is something awry with Wu’s comment. Aren’t the courts supposed to decide if “the outcome is firmly supported by law?” And if it’s not the court’s job to interpret what the law means, then whose job is it?
It seems to me that there is a bit of a power struggle between the courts and the Cabinet. On the one side, the courts want to defend individual rights against environmental pollution. On the other, Wu wants to promote prosperity through economic development.
Both positions have a lot in their favor. The real question, however, is legal: Who is the final interpreter of the law? In light of this, we should ask: Is Wu right? If the courts want to stop a development and Wu wants it to continue, who ought to win?
Here’s a brief recap of the situation. In 2006, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) gave the green light for the third-phase expansion of the science park. Local residents sued the EPA, arguing that the development would damage their farms. In 2008, the court agreed and told the EPA to reassess the environmental impact of the science park by conducting a second environmental impact assessment (EIA). The court ruled that the first EIA was flawed because it did not disclose enough information to properly assess the impact of the expansion on public health and the environment.
The park administration boldly ignored the court decision and continued developing the site. Local residents again filed suit for an injunction and again won when the Taipei High Administrative Court ordered the science park to suspend all construction work until the EPA conducted and approved a second EIA.
Enter Wu and his words about listening to the court if — and only if — the court offers a judgment he favors.
The struggle between the judicial and executive branches is not a problem unique to Taiwan. In 2006, former US president George W. Bush’s administration and the courts went head-to-head over the issue of separation of powers. Following Sept. 11, Bush issued a military order unilaterally establishing military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees for war crimes. The US Supreme Court intervened, daring the president to challenge its authority. Unlike Wu, the president bowed to the power of the court.
The decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld represents a clear check on executive power by the judicial branch. In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order. Located within a single branch, these courts carry the risk that offenses will be defined, prosecuted and adjudicated by executive officials without independent review.”
Although the US Supreme Court established more than 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” the battle between the judiciary and executive is far from over.
In fact, to end this battle would in some sense mark the end of a democratic system.
Nevertheless, the science park case needs resolution. Is the Judicial Yuan a truly independent branch of government, endowed with the right to be the final interpreter of the law?
Or does Wu have the authority to ignore court rulings if he believes that they are not “supported by the law”? The answer to this question will have repercussions for years to come.
JULIA TONG
Taipei
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS