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
After more than a year of review, the National Security Bureau on Monday said it has completed a sweeping declassification of political archives from the Martial Law period, transferring the full collection to the National Archives Administration under the National Development Council. The move marks another significant step in Taiwan’s long journey toward transitional justice. The newly opened files span the architecture of authoritarian control: internal security and loyalty investigations, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, exit and entry controls, overseas surveillance of Taiwan independence activists, and case materials related to sedition and rebellion charges. For academics of Taiwan’s White Terror era —
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly. We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right? It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how
China has apparently emerged as one of the clearest and most predictable beneficiaries of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” approach. Many countries are scrambling to defend their interests and reputation regarding an increasingly unpredictable and self-seeking US. There is a growing consensus among foreign policy pundits that the world has already entered the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the US-led international order. Consequently, a number of countries are reversing their foreign policy preferences. The result has been an accelerating turn toward China as an alternative economic partner, with Beijing hosting Western leaders, albeit
RSS