President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said, following a suggestion by Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) last week that the government order an immediate halt to the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s (新北市) Gongliao District (貢寮) without waiting for a referendum, that such a move would be unconstitutional and illegal. Either Ma, who holds a doctorate in juridical science from Harvard Law School, has misunderstood the Council of Grand Justices’ constitutional interpretation, or he is willfully misleading the legislature and the public.
Ma’s contention that halting construction would be unconstitutional could be referring to the Council of Grand Justices’ 2000 constitutional interpretation No. 520, necessitated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government’s decision to halt the plant’s construction. After this interpretation was made, the government had to announce construction would continue. However, that is not to say that the interpretation deemed halting the construction unconstitutional in itself.
Constitutional interpretation No. 520 said the budget passed by the legislature was a massnahmegesetz (“law of measures”), and that if the government wanted to halt construction of the plant, it should have reported this to the legislature. Had the policy change secured majority support within the legislature, the budget could have been rescinded and the government could have proceeded. If a majority in the legislature opposed the move, or came to any other resolution, the government would have had to negotiate a solution or choose a way forward allowable within the constitutional framework.
The DPP government conceded back in 2000 not because the grand justices ruled that halting the construction was unconstitutional, but because the economy was weak and the government was facing a boycott by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) opposition, which controlled a majority in the legislature. It felt it had to reverse its decision to avoid a political war. Therefore, any suggestion by Ma of unconstitutionality is uninformed and entirely without basis.
Second, there would be little chance of a repeat of the chaos of 2000 if the Executive Yuan announced a halt to construction of the plant now. The KMT controls both the executive and legislative branches, and if the Executive Yuan announced the halt and then arranged the budget and made the relevant amendments to the law, the KMT-controlled legislature could finish the required procedures. There would be nothing unconstitutional or illegal about this. Not only would the opposition parties not try to stand in their way, they would be positively overjoyed and give their wholehearted assistance. In fact, this would be a very rare case of legislature-wide unanimity and unity.
Ma is no political maverick: As a leader, he is very cautious. He is not going to expose himself to risk or take responsibility for more than he needs to. True, the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster did shake his confidence in the safety of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, but he is still leaning toward having the plant’s fate decided through a public referendum.
When Jiang responded to public opinion — the sheer force of which exceeded all expectations — expressed in the recent anti-nuclear demonstrations around the country, Ma immediately spoke up to qualify the words of his premier, saying that halting construction on the plant would be unconstitutional. His intention was to rein in KMT legislators, and to sway public opinion and the ongoing debate.
Ma is reluctant to take responsibility for what happens to the plant, and wants to hand its fate over to a referendum that has what many perceive as an overly high threshold requirement. However, his obvious attempts to manipulate the situation will only add to his legacy of inaction and incompetence.
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