Print

Mail

wiki links

Recall effort too politicized: analysts

The escalation of political confrontation has made the recall of the president a highly partisan issue, and so constitutional precedents regarding the legislature's review of a recall motion are not likely to be set, political analysts say.

While pan-blue legislators have been busying themselves holding public hearings to build support for the recall motion, which will be put to a vote next Tuesday on the legislative floor, the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) boycott strategy has overshadowed the hearings.

The pan-blues initially wished to debate with DPP officials who are allegedly involved in the scandals, but DPP officials' absence from their hearings last week left the pan-blue side with no choice but to repeat things it has already said many times over.

The pan-greens' plan to skip the four days set aside to review the recall motion, which began Wednesday, is sure to provoke further disputes with the pan-blues, who are insisting that the president or his representatives attend.

The rationale behind the pan-blue camp's demand is to set a constitutional precedent for future recall cases, considering the inadequacy of current recall regulations.

But Lee Yeau-tarn (李酉潭), an associate professor at National Chengchi University's Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities, said that there is no need to set constitutional precedents for recall.

"As Taiwan's Constitution is based on a pro-presidency system, the president's term of office should be protected from the disturbance of a recall, for the reason that the recall is usually used as a means for political parties to seize power," Lee said.

Lee said that the recall mechanism should be revoked under the presidential system.

The DPP legislative caucus whips rejected the pan-blue's demands to question the president or his representatives during the legislature's upcoming review of the recall motion, saying that there was no legal basis for the president to be required to do so.

In accordance with related regulations, the only stipulation governing recall procedures is specified in Article 44 of the Law Governing Legislators' Exercise of Power (立法院職權行使法), which says that the president may choose to respond to the recall proposal in writing.

Hsu Chu-feng (許主峰), a member of Taiwan Association of University Professors, said that there was nothing wrong with the president deciding not to respond and for the DPP officials not to attend either hearings or the entire legislature's review meetings.

"Since the president is elected from direct popular election, he thus is responsible to the public, rather than to the legislature," Hsu said.

He added, "Even if the president chooses to respond to the recall, he doesn't have to do it now. He only needs to respond after the recall motion has passed the legislature."

To succeed, the recall motion needs a two-thirds legislative majority and the support of at least half of the nation's electorate in a referendum.

Hsu said that the right to recall the president is a type of civil right, which means that the public's view of a recall is more important than the legislature's.
This story has been viewed 1634 times.