President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has nominated lawyer Huang Horng-shya (黃虹霞), Deputy Minister of Justice Wu Chen-huan (吳陳鐶), National Taiwan University law professor Tsai Ming-cheng (蔡明誠) and Shilin District Court President Lin Jyun-yi (林俊益) for seats on the Council of Grand Justices.
The grand justices are the protectors of the Constitution and respected members of society, but the nominations were met with boos, as many civic organizations protested against the nominations.
This was a round of nominations that no one was looking forward to, because although the president has the right of nomination and the legislature the right of approval, Ma’s approval rating stands at a mere 9 percent, making him a lame duck president who represents only a minority of public opinion. With legislative elections to be held early next year, the legislature’s legitimacy is weak, although it is still legal, of course, for it to use its right of approval.
Past grand justices have not only protected the spirit of the Constitution and been the arbiters of social values, they have also been pioneers of social reform — the full election to the legislature in 1992 and guarantees for the right to personal security and the freedom of expression all came about through constitutional interpretations by the Council of Grand Justices.
During Ma’s term in office, the council has been hollowed out and there have been almost no constitutional interpretations of major social significance over the past six or seven years, and the grand justices, who should all be very learned in legal issues, have not written any sonorous interpretation texts or dissenting opinions.
Ma might have a legal background, but he treats the grand justices as bureaucrats. None of the four nominees have published any significant legal works, worked on cases that have protected important social values or expressed any novel authoritative opinions. They are merely legal workers who have followed the promotional routine: If you have been a judge long enough, you can be a grand justice. Ma clearly fails to realize the importance of the grand justices.
Ma has been particularly criticized for nominating Lin Jyun-yi (林俊益), a former Supreme Court judge who acquitted Ma of corruption charges in connection with the use of his special allowance during his stint as Taipei mayor. Although Lin has said that Ma was acquitted on procedural issues and not on the facts of the case, his nomination is suspicious.
If Ma wants to reward Lin in the same way as he appointed Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) to head the Ministry of Justice after she helped him off the hook in the special allowance case, he is not worthy of the presidency. If that is not his intent, but the nomination committee failed to consider Lin’s past judicial record, then the nomination committee has failed in its duties.
If these four nominees are approved, all 15 grand justices will have been nominated by Ma, which means that Ma will continue to wield influence over them, even after he steps down. This jeopardizes their independence and violates Article 5 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution, which stipulates staggered terms of service for grand justices, to avoid a situation where one president appoints all grand justices, and guarantees their independence.
Ma has a constitutional right to make these four nominations, but whether the nominees are appropriate and the nomination process was flawed is another matter. The public is sure to pressure the legislature to subject the nominees to a strict review.
Ma’s nominations and the resulting negative response are reminiscent of the rejection of 11 of Ma’s 29 nominees to the Control Yuan last year.
By making inappropriate nominations, Ma has been the master of his own humiliation.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath