The “September strife” ambush launched by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) against Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) that showed no respect whatsoever for due process in constitutional government has not only been blasted by the public and various civic groups, but many senior Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) members have also strongly criticized it.
What is unusual about the whole thing is that not only have KMT legislators kept silent about the political principles of this constitutional issue, but even the legislature — which is supposed to be responsible for placing checks and balances on executive authority — has shown no signs of taking constitutional means to solve this crisis.
The improper lobbying of the judiciary on behalf of an old friend, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘), of which Wang has been accused would not be accepted by any democratic society and would certainly constitute a scandal in any country that respects the rule of law.
Under Ma’s unconstitutional and clumsy political manipulation this dispute has temporarily taken a back seat to other issues, but if the politicians involved think that they can get off scot-free amid all the recent chaos, they are underestimating the public.
Regrettably, the legislature, which is supposed to guard against unconstitutional actions and the abuse of power by the executive based on the principles of “separation of powers” and “legislative discipline,” has yet to show any signs of initiating any “legislative discipline.”
All we have seen is Ker, who, unable to handle the internal and external pressures on him, made a political move in which he demanded that the Legislative Yuan’s Discipline Committee review his alleged role in the lobbying case. However, this has not had any official procedural effect at all.
DPP legislators have been focusing on how Ma’s actions were unconstitutional and have thrown politics into turmoil, but they avoid the question of whether Ker is still suitable to continue on as whip, or just state that that the issue is complicated.
The DPP’s Central Committee has also remained silent over whether it should launch an internal party investigation and start disciplinary procedures. Ideals such as “reform” and “progressive values” that the DPP once championed have since lost their value.
KMT legislators have shown themselves to be no different, their loyalties caught between Ma and Wang. Their best bet is to remain noncommittal, avoid any mention of a constitutional crisis, try to create an atmosphere of harmony, letting bygones be bygones and looking toward the future and suddenly starting to focus on issues related the living standards, hoping to draw people’s attention away from the various “misunderstandings” that have occurred.
A legislature that tries to smooth over differences without regard for right and wrong will not only have a hard time placing checks and balances on a president that is already out of control, it will also be incapable of winning the confidence and respect of civil society. There are two major issues that the legislature cannot avoid.
First, did Ma go against the Constitution or interfere in legislative responsibility to respond to this? And second, did Wang and Ker break the law, requiring legislative disciplinary measures? How the legislature will respond to these problems and how those involved will get themselves out of this predicament are matters that the public are already paying very close attention to.
Huang Kuo-chang is a research professor at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
Translated by Drew Cameron
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS