Former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) once told former American Institute in Taiwan director Stephen Young that Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was a rigid legalist and that if one wanted to understand the president’s behavior and actions, all they needed do is look at what the law says. However, this gives Ma too much credit — the only law he lives by is: “I am the law.”
The president focuses only on his own interests and interprets the law selectively to suit his purposes.
As such, it is only natural that he would shamelessly interpret the law to justify the embezzlement of public funds in the abuse of special allowance case against him when he was Taipei mayor, as well as ignore the Supreme Court’s decision by refusing to pay the Taipei City Government’s debt to the National Health Insurance — also during his term as Taipei mayor.
Ma has also reinterpreted the law to claim that his US green card had been automatically invalidated and to bring about political chaos by violating the Constitution while conspiring to unseat Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) during late-night meetings in his official residence.
His interpretation of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution — a constitution for a government-in-exile — is even more arbitrary.
During the debates over constitutional changes that took place in the 1990s, the president went against the mainstream to claim that instituting direct presidential elections would be tantamount to bringing about Taiwanese independence. However, after being elected president in direct polls, Ma has interpreted the Constitution to mean that the territory of the ROC includes China and that cross-strait relations constitute neither state-to-state relations, nor international relations.
The rotten ROC Constitution does not itemize the country’s territories and when it was written, Taiwan proper and the Penghu archipelago were still occupied by the Allied forces.
Yet Ma is still talking in his sleep about the ROC’s territory extending not only to Taiwan proper and the Penghu archipelago, but to all China. What kind of legalist interpretation is that? How many Taiwanese would agree with that view?
The Chinese are just as preposterous as Ma. Just like the ROC Constitution, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) does not itemize the country’s territories, but despite that, the preamble names Taiwan as part of China’s “sacred territory.”
However, if China’s territory is so sacred, one wonders how former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) could sign away 1.6 million km2 of territory in with the stroke of a pen in the 1991 Sino-Soviet Border Agreement.
Neither of these constitutions defines their countries’ respective territories, but they do define what it means to be a “citizen” of that nation.
Article 3 of the ROC Constitution states that: “Persons possessing the nationality of the Republic of China shall be citizens of the Republic of China,” while Article 33 of the PRC Constitution stipulates that: “All persons holding the nationality of the People’s Republic of China are citizens of the People’s Republic of China.”
This makes it clear that the citizens of the two countries are independent of one other.
If Ma really is a legal dogmatic, he cannot ignore Article 2 of the ROC Constitution, which says: “The sovereignty of the Republic of China shall reside in the whole body of citizens.”
Despite this, the 23 million people that possess ROC citizenship and who were born and brought up in Taiwan have not been affected by Ma’s paranoia.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS