The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have worked in cahoots to try and force through legislative reform bills. So far, the contents are questionable — the legislation is not only of exceptionally poor quality, but also ignores basic constitutionality.
The “state of the nation address” motion alone reveals that the proponents have lost all sense of constitutional awareness.
The Legislative Yuan on Tuesday last week completed the second reading of Article 15-1 of the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power (立法院職權行使法). It came to light that the KMT and the TPP had not only revised the original articles, but had also added two new ones, including making the state of the nation address into a “compulsory duty.” These amendments seem to have been “cooked up” and passed in the shadows, a shockingly unconstitutional move.
Article 15-1 of the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power states that the source of its authority derives from the Additional Articles of the Constitution (憲法增修條文) and that it follows the conditions set by these constitutional amendments. Article 4-3 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution stipulates that “when the Legislative Yuan convenes each year, it may hear a report on the state of the nation by the president.”
However, the KMT and the TPP have proposed an amendment that changes this optional provision into a mandatory requirement — “the newly elected president must submit a state of the nation report to the Legislative Yuan within two weeks of their inauguration to office, and has to deliver his speech within a month” — which is a blatant violation of the existing constitutional agreement.
The amendment to the law raises concerns around the sheer number of state of the nation addresses.
The reasoning is straightforward. With the exception of a presidential handover following elections, the only instances in which the president leaves office is as a result of resignation, impeachment, dismissal or death. In such situations, the vice president must assume the presidency or the succession must be handled according to constitutional regulations.
However, consider a scenario in which the president has already presented his speech to the Legislative Yuan, but must subsequently step down. If the KMT and the TPP had their way, the new president would need to deliver another address.
In a second scenario involving a presidential handover, if the outgoing president had delivered a state of the nation address before March 1, the incoming president would still have to give another one according to the second reading of Article 15-1.
In yet another situation involving multiple presidential transitions within one year, each new president would be obliged to deliver a speech. Just how many speeches does the president need to deliver to satisfy the demands of the KMT and the TPP?
The wording of the “state of the nation address” as stipulated in the Additional Articles of the Constitution clearly indicates that it was only intended to be delivered once a year. Any interpretation that calls for multiple speeches within a year would be nothing but a thorn in the side of the president. It is glaringly obvious that should the presidency change, the address should simply defer to the following year.
The intentions behind the bills might be crystal clear, but are certainly not pure — the goal is to ultimately extend the Legislative Yuan’s oversight of the Executive Yuan to the president.
This might explain the decision to replace the term “premier” with “president” in Article 16 of the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power, which originally required the premier to present an administrative report within two weeks of assuming office.
In their smugness, perhaps the KMT and the TPP have forgotten that the Constitution states that “the Executive Yuan is accountable to the Legislative Yuan,” not the president is accountable to the Legislative Yuan.
The Constitution outlines specific roles and responsibilities for the president and the Legislative Yuan in governing the nation, with the Additional Articles of the Constitution already establishing rules regarding the state of the union address. Should the KMT and the TPP wish to expand oversight of the president, they should seek to directly change the Constitution rather than attempt to sneak in shady and unconstitutional legislative amendments.
(Editor’s note: The reform bills passed their third reading on Tuesday.)
Chang Bao-yuan is a former presidential secretary.
Translated by Gabrielle Killick
In the past month, two important developments are poised to equip Taiwan with expanded capabilities to play foreign policy offense in an age where Taiwan’s diplomatic space is seriously constricted by a hegemonic Beijing. Taiwan Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) led a delegation of Taiwan and US companies to the Philippines to promote trilateral economic cooperation between the three countries. Additionally, in the past two weeks, Taiwan has placed chip export controls on South Africa in an escalating standoff over the placing of its diplomatic mission in Pretoria, causing the South Africans to pause and ask for consultations to resolve
An altercation involving a 73-year-old woman and a younger person broke out on a Taipei MRT train last week, with videos of the incident going viral online, sparking wide discussions about the controversial priority seats and social norms. In the video, the elderly woman, surnamed Tseng (曾), approached a passenger in a priority seat and demanded that she get up, and after she refused, she swung her bag, hitting her on the knees and calves several times. In return, the commuter asked a nearby passenger to hold her bag, stood up and kicked Tseng, causing her to fall backward and
In December 1937, Japanese troops captured Nanjing and unleashed one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. Over six weeks, hundreds of thousands were slaughtered and women were raped on a scale that still defies comprehension. Across Asia, the Japanese occupation left deep scars. Singapore, Malaya, the Philippines and much of China endured terror, forced labor and massacres. My own grandfather was tortured by the Japanese in Singapore. His wife, traumatized beyond recovery, lived the rest of her life in silence and breakdown. These stories are real, not abstract history. Here is the irony: Mao Zedong (毛澤東) himself once told visiting
When I reminded my 83-year-old mother on Wednesday that it was the 76th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, she replied: “Yes, it was the day when my family was broken.” That answer captures the paradox of modern China. To most Chinese in mainland China, Oct. 1 is a day of pride — a celebration of national strength, prosperity and global stature. However, on a deeper level, it is also a reminder to many of the families shattered, the freedoms extinguished and the lives sacrificed on the road here. Seventy-six years ago, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東)
RSS