In Britain's parliament, "one can do anything except turn a man into a woman or vice versa." In our legislature, which is equally permissive, "being able to do anything," includes openly cursing a man as a "son of a bitch" or slapping a woman in the hallowed halls of political debate. If Britain's parliamentarians knew the ferocity of Taiwan's legislators, they would undoubtedly sigh and concede their own comparative unworthiness.
Britain, however, has a Cabinet system while Taiwan has a semi-presidential system. The difference is that Britain's parliament is capable of fully checking and balancing the government, but Taiwan's legislature has no constitutional ability whatsoever to extend its influence over the Presidential Office. That office does not have to be responsible to the legislature, nor does it have to listen to any opinions from the legislature.
Legislators can openly censure national policy advisers and senior advisers to the president by using foul language to make personal attacks, but this accomplishes nothing apart from venting their personal frustration. It merely shows the quality of their own upbringing. What does it have to do with anyone else? As for pressuring the Presidential Office to dismiss advisers from their posts or asking the Control Yuan to impeach them, not only is there no basis for this in law, but such actions transgress the limits of legislators' authority. Under the umbrella of protected speech, legislators can insult each other and anyone else, but any attempt to extend their authority over the president or his national policy advisers will end with frustrated cries, having achieved nothing.
It is not only legislators who are without any means to deal with national policy advisers. Even the president himself has no legal recourse for cutting short their tenure. This is called due process. Amid the recent uproar over the Japanese cartoonist Yoshinori Kobayashi (小林善紀), Alice King (金美齡), a presidental adviser, openly called for the president to step down and went on to declare that she doesn't recognize the ROC -- and she can't be ousted from her job.
Speaking purely from the perspective of the system of constitutional government, there are no limits at all on national policy advisers and senior advisers to the president. Even if they are foreigners, there are no provisions for removing them. Although King's words grated on many people's ears, no one can point out which "heavenly edict" she has violated.
The funny thing is that some legislators want to revise the laws relating to the Presidential Office. They want to add a provision to the statute on the organization of the national policy advisers committee requiring recognition of the ROC. This amounts to establishing a law aimed at a particular person. We could call it the "Alice King statute." It fully reveals the apprehension these legislators feel about the existence of the ROC.
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS