Taiwan Tati Cultural and Educational Foundation

Safeguards against harmful laws

Chuang Sheng-rong 莊勝榮

Following the controversial passage of amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法), the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) and the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party legislators, it has been said that President William Lai (賴清德) could apply Article 37 of the Constitution and simply not promulgate the amendments, while the premier could refuse to countersign them into law.

Unfortunately, presidential promulgation and the premier’s countersignature are legal duties, which neither has the power to refuse. Such a refusal would only add to the chaos, break with constitutional procedure and bring the nation closer to a constitutional crisis. This stuff is constitutional law and governance 101.

KMT bringing nation to brink

Tommy Lin 林逸民

During the party-state era, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) controlled the media. It would portray the dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) movement as violent disruptors and emphasize conflict in the legislature, saddling the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) with the unfair label of the “party of violence” for several decades.

Today, we are seeing images of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍), sporting a hard hat on her head and shoes with steel-toe caps on her feet charging to the legislative podium in an egregious display of violence. It is not for nothing that she has been called the “Kinmen tank.”

Taiwan’s new constitutional moment

Yeh Chieh-ting 葉介庭

Within the past month, the world has witnessed the collapse of governments in France and Germany, while South Korea went through a surprise six hours of martial law, resulting in the impeachment of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol. In Canada, there have been calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to step down after the resignation of his finance minister.

Amid all this turmoil, Taiwan’s “vibrant” democracy is also facing its own crisis — again. Taiwan has long been thought to have made solid gains in consolidating its democratic systems, but as democracies around the world face increasing pressures, Taiwan is not immune.

Taiwan’s status isn’t undetermined

Sim Kiantek 沈建德

Supporters of Taiwan in Taipei assert that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has no authority to represent Taiwan. Some say the Cairo Declaration is not a treaty and lacks legal standing — in other words, it should be ignored. Others say that Japan gave up control over Taiwan and Penghu in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but never stipulated to whom Taiwan’s sovereignty would be transferred, meaning Taiwan’s status is undetermined.

However, both arguments are outdated and should be revised based on new information.

First, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has previously ruled that all international agreements are legally binding — this means that the Cairo Declaration has legal effect. However, the Cairo Declaration does not involve Taiwan. This was clearly explained by the declaration’s drafter, then-UK prime minister Winston Churchill, on Feb. 1, 1955. The Academia Historica’s archives about the Cairo communique also state as much.

More Articles...