During a hearing at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Legislator Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) were left flummoxed, despite their credentials.
Facing the widely shared view among legal experts that a TPP-KMT-backed bill to expand legislative powers is unconstitutional, Huang responded with rhetoric, protesting that “the pan-green camp can do it, but we cannot” — which was an attempt at deflection.
The KMT and the TPP cannot rationally discuss the “principle of separation of powers” as delineated in the court’s interpretations No. 585, 633 and 729, as well as the principle of legal clarity, comparative law and proper legal procedures.
What constitutional grounds could be used to expand the legislature’s powers?
The court reviewed the case, thoroughly exposing the unconstitutionality of the bill, which was an attempt to grab more power.
Weng has provoked anger with comments such as those saying that the badminton gold-medal win at the Paris Olympics by Lee Yang (李洋) and Wang Chi-lin (王齊麟) was “the pride of Chinese people.” The form of her arguments defending the comment was addressed by Lee Chuan-he (李荃和), the Executive Yuan’s legal representative who filed the lawsuit.
Lee Chuan-he was raising the issue of “counterquestioning.”
Throughout the hearing, neither Huang or Weng could clearly define what “counterquestioning” entails, even though they support the bill, which would force people to answer questions in the legislature.
They could not produce a single example of comparative law to support the idea, because the bill’s “penalty for counterquestioning” is the first such proposal in the world.
Democracies such as the UK, the US, Germany, France, Japan and South Korea do not have a system of penalties for “counterquestioning” as is proposed in the bill, so the two parties have no example of a counterquestioning penalty.
The democratic world does not concentrate government powers into a single branch. The constitutional value of a legislature not expanding its powers is clear.
Thirty international academics, including former American Institute in Taiwan directors William Stanton and Stephen Young, have also commented on the matter, saying that the blue-white camps’ bill to expand the legislature’s powers “exceeds the scope of democracies in the international community, overturns the concept of the rule of law and contravenes procedural justice.”
Furthermore, the European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan, which has invested more than US$70 billion in the nation, issued a warning as soon as the bill proposed a criminal charge for “contempt of the legislature.”
The Economist said that the bill was “a legislature expanding its powers and ruining the separation of powers. The board would be re-evaluating Taiwan’s democracy ranking.”
The Financial Times did not mince words, saying that the expansion would “create an opportunity for China to infiltrate Taiwan.”
In addition to the democracies of Europe and the US viewing the bill with a great deal of skepticism, Taiwanese legal experts and the legal field in the nation also concur that the proposed expansion of legislative powers is unconstitutional.
Moreover, 123 professors of law from universities across Taiwan have signed petitions saying that the proposal “is procedurally flawed and defective, and its contents contravene the constitution.”
The Taiwan Bar Association, Taipei Bar Association and more than 400 lawyers have signed the petitions. All of them maintain that the proposal is “unconstitutional.”
Under an unequivocally clear democratic constitutional value of a separation of powers, as found in the US and European democracies and in legal circles, it is plain to see that the push for an expansion of the legislature’s powers is unconstitutional.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and policy committee member in the Taiwan Nation Alliance.
Translated by Tim Smith
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS