On Sept. 29, two men splashed Hong Kong singer Denise Ho (何韻詩) with red paint during a rally in Taipei in support of democracy in Hong Kong. Prosecutors charged the suspects under the Organized Crime Prevention Act (組織犯罪防制條例) and applied for them to be detained, but a court released one on bail of NT$200,000 and the other on NT$100,000. This enabled the police to find other accomplices, some of whom are connected with the China Unification Promotion Party (CUPP).
The CUPP’s activities often bring it into conflict with the law. It advocates unification with authoritarian China, which also brings it into conflict with the Constitution. However, Germany’s experience of dealing with neo-Nazi political parties shows that it is hard to ban parties on the grounds of unconstitutionality.
After World War II, to prevent a repeat of the Nazis’ subversion of the Weimar Constitution, Germany established the Federal Constitutional Court with reference to the US system of constitutional review.
According to Article 21, Paragraph 2 of Germany’s Basic Law, political parties that “by reason of their aims or the behavior of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality.”
Based on this article, the Federal Constitutional Court in 1952 dissolved the Socialist Reich Party (SRP), which was composed of former Nazis. The court also banned the Communist Party of Germany in 1956. When the SRP was ruled unconstitutional, any successor organizations were also banned.
However, the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), which also inherited Nazi traditions, took over the political resources of the far-right shortly after the SRP’s dissolution and won seats in state parliaments and even the European Parliament.
As early as the 1960s, Germany’s federal and state governments have filed various lawsuits against the NPD to prevent its expansion. However, in January 2017 the Federal Constitutional Court ruled against outlawing the NPD. Elements of NPD ideology, such as racial supremacy and exclusion of immigrants, disrespect human dignity. Furthermore, it negates and threatens the free democratic order.
As Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law stipulates subjective intention (mens rea) even in the absence of objective acts (actus reus), the NPD’s extremist ideas themselves meet the criteria of being anti-constitutional.
Nevertheless, the Federal Constitutional Court considered that because the prohibition of a political party deprives people of the freedoms of expression, foundation, activities and political participation, outlawing it could only be a last resort. Considering the NPD’s lack of political significance, the court did not find it necessary to dissolve the party, even though its ideologies match the article’s description.
Article 5, Paragraph 5 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China stipulates the conditions for outlawing a party in similar terms to Germany’s Basic Law: “A political party shall be considered unconstitutional if its goals or activities endanger the existence of the Republic of China or the nation’s free and democratic constitutional order.”
This article leaves considerable room for interpretation. If the Ministry of the Interior applied to ban the CUPP, it would be accused of political repression, and for the same reason, it is doubtful whether the Council of Grand Justices would dare rule that the CUPP is unconstitutional.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor of law at Aletheia University and president of the Taiwan Jury Association.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers