Establish a Protocol for the State of the Nation Report

Establish a Protocol for the State of the Nation Report
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 19, 2012

Summary: We believe the president's State of the Nation Report should retain its multipurpose nature. It should be a policy statement, a vision, and a national ritual. We believe the best mechanism for communication and coopetition between political parties, is a one-on-one, face to face "Party Leaders Summit."

Full Text below:

First, compare two scenarios. One. President Ma has long advocated a "Party Leader Summit." He has long hoped for one-on-one meetings with party leaders, and face to face, in-depth deliberations on national policy. But the opposition DPP has long given him the cold shoulder. Two. The President visits the Legislative Yuan to make his or her State of the Nation Report. But the opposition DPP insists on subjecting the president to Legislative Yuan "interrogation."

This is a consistent pattern in partisan political struggles on Taiwan. An unwillingness to hold one-on-one, face to face, in-depth deliberations on natonal policy, and a preference for free for all gang rumbles. Consider a current example. The ruling and opposition parties are quarreling over whether President Ma should deliver a State of the Nation Report before the Legislative Yuan. President Ma is willing. But the opposition DPP insists on turning it into a Q&A style interrogation.

Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng says he personally believes any interaction "should not be in the form of a question and answer session." According to the constitution, the president is not subject to Legislative Yuan oversight. He is not answerable to the Legislative Yuan. If the president were to accept such a challenge, he would merely muddy the constitutional framework. Wang Jin-pyng's statement is consistent with the constitutional framework of the dual-leadership system.

Consider the framework of the dual-leadership system. If the president submits to Legislative Yuan interrogation, then his role will clash with the premier's. Also, suppose the president is a minority president and must deal with an opposition controlled legislature? Suppose a minority president must deal with an opposition cabinet? The constitutional crisis could be disastrous.

Consider the original intent of the Additional Articles of the Constitution. The president delivered his State of the Nation Report before the National Assembly. It was clearly different from questioning under the framework of the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. The National Assembly was later dissolved. The system was transferred to the Legislative Yuan, But the distinction should be preserved. It must not be undermined.

But the constitution merely provides the KMT with a shield. The real reason is to prevent opposition parties from using the State of the Nation Report to humiliate the President, and turning a solemn constitutional ritual into a farce. What this would do to the atmosphere in the Legislative Yuan, and what sort of scenarios would appear, can easily be imagined.

The United States adopted a tripartite system for the separation of powers. The president is not answerable to Congress. The President of the United States visits the Congress annually and delivers his State of the Union Address. He reports on the situation at home and abroad. He offers his political vision. He does not take part in an impromptu Q&A session. Once the President finishes speaking, the entire Congress, regardless of party affilition, gives him a standing ovation, and watches as he or she leaves. This has become an important American political rite, a remarkable event that occurs once each year.

Partisan political clashes in the U.S. Congress are quite vehement. Yet the opposition party would never use the president's State of the Union Address as an opportunity to stage a political protest. The same cannot be said of our own Legislative Yuan. The president might not be subjected to interrogation. But the opposition DPP would have all sorts of tricks up its sleeve. If a Q&A style interrogation were actually held, the scenario can easily be imagined.

Actually, if the president visited the Legislative Yuan to make a State of the Nation Report, it would enhance constitutional rule. Each year the president could offer a vision for national policy. He or she could create a national consensus. He or she could establish guidelines for the national policy and administrative efficiency. This is the key role of the President of the United States' annual State of the Union Address. After all, the U.S. President's State of the Union Address remains subject to rigorous scrutiny by rival political parties and by the general public. This message, first heard in Congress, is communicated through various channels. It is not conducted in the form of a live Q&A session. Is our Legislative Yuan incapable of first listening to the Chief Executive's State of the Nation Report and giving him a standing ovation before subjecting his remarks to rigorous scrutiny through other channels?

As mentioned above, under the current "dual-leadership system," interactions between the president and the legislature must adhere strictly to the constitution. Anything else could precipitate a constitutional crisis. Ruling and opposition party legislators have reached a consensus on the State of the Nation Report. They say "If the president refuses to submit to interrogation, he will not be allowed to deliver his report." They flatter themselves. They put the cart before the horse. If for this reason the president is prevented from delivering his State of the Nation Report before the legislature, it will be a major blow to constitutional rule.

We believe the president's State of the Nation Report should retain its multipurpose nature. It should be a policy statement, a vision, and a national ritual. We believe the best mechanism for communication and coopetition between political parties, is a one-on-one, face to face "Party Leaders Summit."

遵行憲法 設立總統國情報告體制
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.04.19 02:03 am

先比較一下這兩個場景：一、馬總統一直鼓吹「政黨領袖高峰會」，希望與各黨黨魁一對一、面對面深入研議國政，但在野黨始終反應冷漠；二、如今，關於總統赴立院作國情報告的體制，在野黨則非要主張把總統拉到立院「質詢」。

這正是台灣政黨鬥爭的一貫模式：不願一對一、面對面深入研議國政，反而喜歡打群架。當前的實例是：為了馬總統是否赴立法院作國情報告，朝野政黨吵得不可開交；馬總統願意應邀前往，但在野黨堅持要一問一答地「質詢」。

立法院長王金平說，他個人認為「不宜一問一答」；因為，依據憲法，總統不受立法院監督，不對立法院負責；如果總統接受「質詢」，憲法體制即告混亂。王金平的說法，符合「雙首長制」的憲政架構。

就「雙首長制」的架構言，倘總統在立法院答覆質詢，非但將與行政院長發生角色衝突，且若總統為「朝小野大」的「少數總統」，或「少數總統」任命了國會多數黨組閣，其可能引爆的憲政危機將至不堪設想。

按憲法增修條文原本設計，總統作國情報告的對象為國民大會，可證與行政及立法院之間的質詢體制有所區隔；後來因廢了國民大會，此制乃移至立法院，但其區隔仍應維持，不宜破壞。

不過，引據憲法規定，只是國民黨的擋箭牌；真正的原因，是防備在野黨運用國情報告的場域羞辱總統，把莊嚴的憲法儀節扭曲成一場鬧劇。就立法院的文化及氣質言，那種場景是用膝蓋也可想像的。

美國採三權分立，總統亦不對國會負責。美國總統每年赴國會作國情咨文，報告國內外情勢，發表政治願景，亦不作即席詢答；總統言畢，全院舉座不分黨派一律起立鼓掌，目送總統離席。此一節目，已成美國政治的重要儀節，是一年一度舉世矚目的大事。

美國國會的政黨制衡相當嚴厲，然在野黨不會拿總統國情咨文這樣的場域作政治抗爭；但我們的立法院，即使總統不作答詢，已可預見在野黨必是花樣百出，若真進行一問一答，那種場景豈堪想像？

其實，若能創下總統赴立院作國情報告的憲例，對民主憲政的提升極具意義。一方面，在每個年度能由總統發表國政願景，可以凝聚國人共識；另一方面，對政府的政策方向及執政績效，亦具指引及砥礪的功能。這正是美國總統每年國情咨文的主要作用；何況，美國總統的國情咨文，亦必然受到各政黨及輿論的嚴格檢視，這在國會聽取咨文後即循各種管道及機制體現，卻不是以現場詢答的方式進行。我們的立法院，能不能也在聽罷國家元首的國情報告後，給予起立鼓掌，然後再循其他管道及機制加以嚴格檢驗？

如前所述，在目前「雙首長制」下，總統與立院的憲政互動，必須準確規範，否則即可能發生憲政危機。目前朝野對國情報告的爭執，大有「不給質詢，就不要報告」的態勢；這猶如抱櫝還珠，實在是本末倒置。倘若因此而不能建立總統國情報告的體制，那將是國家憲政的重大損傷。

我們認為，總統國情報告的體制，仍應維持其「政策宣示／願景呈現／國家典儀」的多重性質；至於各政黨之間的溝通及競合互動，若能舉行一對一、面對面的「政黨領袖高峰會」，當為最佳機制。