While the legitimacy of the Control Yuan filing a request for a constitutional interpretation of the Act Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations (政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例) is questionable, there are several questionable elements in its report on the constitutionality of the law.
The Control Yuan on Tuesday made public the report, which was the basis for its request for an interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers blasted the Control Yuan for overstepping the constitutional boundaries between government bodies. They said it is not within the Control Yuan’s purview to file such a request and that it also has no say in the Executive Yuan following a law passed by the democratically elected legislature.
Those who came to the Control Yuan’s defense countered by saying the fact that it had received a citizen’s petition — which is undoubtedly one of its responsibilities — on the matter granted it the right to undertake the investigation and file the request.
However, what was left unmentioned was that the person who filed the petition was a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) worker.
Certainly a KMT employee is no less a citizen than any other Taiwanese, and the fact that the argument presented in the Control Yuan’s report corresponds to the argument made in a request attempted by the KMT last year — unsuccessfully as it had an insufficient number of legislators supporting it — could also be charitably attributed to the body’s paraphrasing of the petitioner’s rhetoric, a lucky coincidence or a similar vein of logic.
However, a closer look at the Control Yuan’s argument shows that it is ludicrous and contradictory.
Ludicrous in that in its attempt to justify the KMT’s questionable assets it calls them — as New Power Party Chief Executive Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has pointed out — “the product of changes to the Republic of China [ROC] Constitution and localization [in Taiwan].”
It is contradictory in that the Control Yuan calls the formation of the KMT’s party-state “a loophole in the Constitution,” yet insists that as long as the ROC Constitution is enforced in Taiwan there should be no law (or committee) that exempts itself — alleged by the Control Yuan — from the application of the ordinary laws under the ROC Constitution.
What the argument amounts to saying is that there was an exceptional moment in the history of the enforcement of the Constitution, but what was done unconstitutionally cannot be redressed by what we have now.
Leaving aside the political intricacy of any attempt to amend the ROC Constitution (rather than adding more “Additional Articles”) due to the political implications that would carry, ie, redefining the political boundary of the ROC that still includes China, the Control Yuan totally missed the point of transitional justice and what “transitional” is about.
Political transformation and changes can lead to a dilemma over the rule of law and how past injustices can be dealt with and righted through a set of principles that are also in a state of transition.
In other countries that have gone through transitional justice periods this usually means a constitutional moment where new constitutions are founded or existing ones fundamentally overhauled.
It is therefore a bit crafty, if not downright deceitful, for the Control Yuan to invoke a constitution that a democratized Taiwan cannot change to justify the past authoritarian regime’s deeds.
For many countries undertaking transitional justice, political compromises have to be made. In Taiwan’s case, maneuvering — with a new democratic mandate — within the parameters of the inherited Constitution and making contextual interpretations will be its task.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS