A Negative Constitutional Precedent:

A Negative Constitutional Precedent: Chen Shui-bian destroys the System before his Departure
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 29, 2008

During his final cabinet reshuffle, President Chen did not assume a humble posture in response to changed public opinion. On the contrary. By turning down the cabinet resignation, he retained Premier Chang Chun-hsiung. By doing so he checked the new legislature. Chen Shui-bian claims he is establishing a new "constitutional precedent." In fact, he is merely flaunting his characteristic egocentricity and indifference to the nation's larger interests.

After eight years in office he has no achievements to speak of. Yet he wants to give constitutional rule a final swift kick before he leaves. Chen Shui-bian's thinking is simply incomprehensible. Chen Shui-bian talks a good game. He said he wanted to avoid another cabinet resignation three months from now. But the Constitution mandates that "the Executive Yuan must be responsible to the Legislative Yuan." The new cabinet must resign before the establishment of the new legislature. This protocol is part of the relationship between the cabinet and the legislature. Chen Shui-bian's refusal to accept the resignation of his cabinet is tantamount to defying the constitution, to an unconstitutional power grab. A president with hardly any time left in his term, casually invents a pretext for indiscriminate constitutional violations. Is this how Chen Shui-bian demonstrates his "love for Taiwan?"

In fact Chen Shui-bian's last cabinet is merely a caretaker government. Its responsibility is merely to maintain the basic functions of government and not make any untoward changes. Those officials deemed most unfit should be replaced. If possible the cabinet should be strengthened with new appointments. Unfortunately this is the farthest thing from Chen Shui-bian's mind. Chen is not concerned about how to respond to the people's expectations, or even how to restore the image of the DPP. Chen is concerned only with how many more photo ops he can enjoy and how many cards he can play before he is forced to step down. This is why he rejected the cabinet resignation.

In other words, Chen's rejection of the cabinet resignation is a declaration that "Chang Chun-hsiung is going to stay right where he is." Chen Shui-bian could have chosen to abide by the constitution. He could have first accepted the cabinet resignation, then reappointed Chang Chun-hsiung. That would have achieve the same purpose. But Chen Shui-bian was unwilling to follow due process. He devised his "turning down the cabinet resignation" ploy. He concocted his "stabilizing the political arrangement" pretext. All to conceal the ugly reality of his own constitutional violations.

A president with little time left in his term, is still racking his brains trying to destroy the system and create conflict. A Bian's unauthorized "rejection of the cabinet resignation" was a flagrant usurpation of the authority of the legislature. It was a demonstration of open contempt for the newly elected legislature, an open provocation. Under such circumstances, how can the ruling and opposition parties reconcile and coexist? What is most absurd is that over the past eight years a president who has been relentlessly creating chaos is now mouthing platitudes about "stabilizing the political arrangement."

In fact, we don't need need political commentators to do the analysis. People can see for themselves that Chen Shui-bian made up his mind long ago. Chang Chun-hsiung would stay put, because he is the premier over whom A Bian has the most control. But A Bian has chosen a tortuous road. He has turned this chess game into a charade. His purpose is twofold: First, to take advantage of the opposition parties and the new legislature. Second, to gain extra leverage in dealing with Frank Hsieh. Most likely the latter is purpose is has priority.

Premier Chang suddenly announced he was "resigning in advance." Then he enacted his "asked to stay on in advance" charade. On the surface we may have been entertained by a string of twists and turns. But for the Chen regime, it was business as usual. Nothing unexpected happened. Even Tu Cheng-sheng and Hsieh Chi-wei, the two officials most detested by the public, were brazenly asked to stay on following the election debacle. How does this meet with the public's expectations? The presidential office and the DPP legislative caucus joined hands and undermined Frank Hsieh's "CEO premier" trial balloon, blunting Hsieh's momentum. In effect Frank Hsieh, as the DPP's presidential candidate, lost the first battle in his struggle to blaze his own trail and deviate from the Chen Shui-bian path.

In the wake of this tempest over the cabinet, people are beginning to see Chen Shui-bian's selfish nature. Even in the final stages of his rule, Chen thinks only of himself: How to maintain his own power, how to save face, how to provide cover for his own henchmen. From the way he has hobbled Frank Hsieh, it is easy to see that even the future of the DPP means nothing to him. If he doesn't care even about the future of the Democratic Progressive Party, how can the people expect Chen's seventh cabinet reshuffle to consider the "aspirations of the people?"

It's ironic. Frank Hsieh was anxious to draw a clear line of distinction between himself and Chen Shui-bian. Instead the struggle over the cabinet Club left him caught in Chen's web, forced to dance to Chen's tune. Chang Chun-hsiung protected his rice bowl. But as a premier without a mind of his own, all he can do now is watch as his reputation and his "Benefit of the Week" policy proposals go down with Chen Shui-bian. The DPP has sunk pretty low. Although Chang Chun-hsiung may have been able to wrangle himself a third term, what has he bequeathed the party?

As Chen Shui-bian boasted, he has won another internecine struggle. He has pulled another fast one. He has successfully undermined the nation's system of constitutional rule. He may be able to gloat for a few days, but he will make the Democratic Progressive Party pay a heavy price for his behavior.

憲政惡例：陳水扁臨下台還要破壞體制
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.01.29 03:02 am

任內最後一次內閣改組，陳總統未謙卑回應新民意，卻逕自以「退回總辭」的方式留任張內閣，趁便「將」新國會一軍。陳水扁雖自詡將創下新的「憲政慣例」，但此舉只是愈發凸顯其凡事皆從自我中心出發，從不考慮國家大局。

八年沒有留下可堪肯定的政績，臨走卻還要對憲政狠踹一腳，陳水扁的居心，簡直匪夷所思。阿扁說得好聽，此舉是為避免內閣三個月後再度總辭；但憲法規定「行政院向立法院負責」，內閣必須在新國會成立前總辭，目的即在確立此一精神。陳水扁自說自話地「退回總辭」，不啻否定憲政設計，掠奪國會權力。一個任期所剩無幾的總統，隨便編個藉口即濫行侵犯憲政，這就是陳水扁「愛台灣」的手法嗎？

事實上，扁任內最後一屆內閣，責任只在「看守」，以維持政府的基本行政運作為務，調幅未必要大。因此，原則上應先汰換外界公認極不適任的官員，行有餘力，再稍事設法補強內閣人事。可惜，陳水扁的布局卻全然不作此想，他考慮的，不是如何因應人民期待，甚至亦非如何挽回民進黨形象，而只是一味盤計自己在其中還有多少表演機會與鬥爭籌碼，也因此才有「退回總辭」的專斷。

所謂「退回總辭」，換個說法，就是「張內閣留任」。陳水扁原本可以選擇依憲政規章行事，接受內閣總辭、並重新任命張俊雄組閣，即達到同一目的。但阿扁偏不甘按部就班，他想出「退回總辭」的花招，並編出「穩定政局」的藉口，卻暗槓自己侵犯憲政體制的事實。

一個任期所剩無幾的總統，還在處心積慮破壞體制、製造紛擾；阿扁擅自「退回總辭」，立法權遭總統侵奪，是對新國會的藐視與挑釁，如此一來，朝野如何和解共生？最荒謬的是，一個八年來不斷製造亂象的總統，這回竟把「穩定政局」的大話掛在嘴邊，真讓人啼笑皆非！

其實，不需要政論家代為分析，民眾都看得出來，陳水扁老早就打定主意要張俊雄留任，因為這是一個他最能全盤控制的閣揆。然而，阿扁卻選擇了一條極其迂迴曲折的路，把這盤棋下得煞有介事。他的主要目的有二：一是藉機消費在野黨和新國會，二是借力使力對付謝長廷；而且，對付後者的比重可能還要大些。

試想，從張揆驟然宣布「提前總辭」，到後來演成「提前留任」，表面看來雖轉折起伏，但就扁政府而言，卻是一切照舊，啥事也沒發生；就連敗選後備遭各界指責的上杜下謝，也都又厚顏留任了下來，這豈符合人民的期待？對民進黨而言，這次是府院聯手，共同戳破了謝長廷「ＣＥＯ閣揆」的氣球，挫折了謝的銳氣。亦即，謝長廷作為民進黨總統候選人，他要擺脫陳水扁路線的第一波戰鬥，目前已慘遭敗北。

歷經這波閣潮，人們也愈發看清楚陳水扁的自私性格；即使在執政的最後階段，他心裡想的仍然只有自己：如何捍衛自己的權位、如何維持自己的顏面、如何保住自己的人馬。從他牽制謝長廷的不留餘地，不難想見，連民進黨的前景在他心中也沒有多少位置。而如果民進黨的未來他都不在乎，那麼，人民又如何奢望他的第七度內閣改組會想到「民之所欲」？

說來諷刺，謝長廷本來急欲與陳水扁切割，但這場閣潮鬥爭失利，反使他深陷陳水扁的羅網中，必須與之共舞。而張俊雄雖然保住了寶座，但作為一個缺乏自由意志的閣揆，也只能讓自己的名聲與「一周一利多」的劣政隨著陳水扁俱沉。民進黨勢頹至此，張俊雄雖奮勇締造個人「三連任」，他能為黨留下光榮嗎？

至於大言不慚的陳水扁，又一次內鬥勝出，又一次出奇招惡整國家憲政；就算自己得意個幾天，苦果終將留給整個民進黨品嘗吧！