President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) encountered a setback as the scheduled confirmation vote on the 29 members of the fifth-term Control Yuan failed to proceed due to hindrance from opposition lawmakers. Even more embarrassing for the chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is that some KMT lawmakers were happy with the result.
Before the vote, the KMT demanded that its lawmakers show their punched ballot to each other or face party discipline, prompting opposition lawmakers to use delay tactics to stave off the vote to confirm Central Election Commission Chairperson Chang Po-ya (張博雅) and former Council of Indigenous Peoples minister Sun Ta-chuan (孫大川) as president and vice president, respectively, of the Control Yuan. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) then declared the extra session over, leaving the vote pending in the legislature.
Presidential Office spokesperson Yin Wei (殷瑋) and KMT spokesperson Charles Chen (陳以信) both wasted no time condemning the opposition, saying it could cause a constitutional crisis, because current Control Yuan members’ terms expire on July 31.
Be that as it may, the boycott staged mainly by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) risks being considered unconstitutional. If such a constitutional crisis occurs, Ma should take the blame for putting forward a controversial list of nominees.
Interpretation No. 632 handed down by the Council of Grand Justices in August 2007 ruled in favor of a request the DPP filed in May 2005, asking about the constitutionality of the pan-blue lawmakers’ boycott in screening then-president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) candidate list for the Control Yuan in December 2004.
According to the constitutional interpretation, the Control Yuan is one of the state organs created by the Constitution to fulfill a constitutional function, and thus their operation cannot be interrupted because of a personnel reshuffle. A president is obliged to make nominations and the legislature to exercise its power of approval, otherwise the Control Yuan would become unable to perform its function, thus undermining the integration of the nation’s constitutional system, which is not permitted by the Constitution, the interpretation said.
The constitutional interpretation did not resolve the stalemate over Chen’s nominees, as the then-opposition alliance led by the KMT argued that the Council of Grand Justices had encroached on the autonomous operation of the legislature. They continued their boycott, which forced the Control Yuan to sit idle for three-and-a-half years until Ma became president.
It would help the Ma administration and the KMT to find a way to avoid such a constitutional crisis if they can think back to the past, when they refused to review the Control Yuan member nominee list submitted by Chen. The main reasons they cited then were that Chen had used the nomination process as political patronage and that some then-sitting Control Yuan members were not nominated again because they had been investigating corruption allegations involving the Chen family.
The roster of Control Yuan nominees submitted by Ma came under much harsher criticism than Chen’s, with many of the nominees dubbed either “loyalists” or “friends of Ma.” Even some KMT lawmakers have singled out 11 candidates, saying they would vote against their confirmation if the KMT did not apply party discipline to the voting.
To meet public expectation, Ma, who has always placed clean government on top of his agenda, should reconsider the nominee list. If not, he may see the disconnect between his governance in the government and in the party, KMT lawmakers and the public widen, and he would, in practical terms, become a lame duck.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with