Chiang Yi-hua and Ker Chien-ming: Who Really Trampled over the Constitution?

Chiang Yi-hua and Ker Chien-ming: Who Really Trampled over the Constitution?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 18, 2013

Summary: The DPP's call for a no-confidence vote was defeated. Will this persuade the DPP to compromise? Will it agree to allow Premier Chiang to deliver his policy report and to respond to questioning? This has become a litmus test, an indicator of whether Taiwan's democracy can function rationally. The DPP's motion for a no confidence vote was defeated. This means the legislature does have confidence in the premier. The DPP may refuse to acknowledge this. But the defeat of the DPP motion proves once again that the KMT is the ruling majority in the legislature, not the DPP.

Full text below:

The US Congress has finally broken its deadlock and reached a tenative agreement on the national budget and the debt ceiling. Can the ROC break its own legislative deadlock? The DPP's call for a no-confidence vote was defeated. Will this persuade the DPP to compromise? Will it agree to allow Premier Chiang to deliver his policy report and to respond to questioning? This has become a litmus test, an indicator of whether Taiwan's democracy can function rationally. The DPP's motion for a no confidence vote was defeated. This means the legislature does have confidence in the premier. The DPP may refuse to acknowledge this. But the defeat of the DPP motion proves once again that the KMT is the ruling majority in the legislature, not the DPP.

The halls of legislature are not city streets. It has its own operating mechanism and its own set of rules. Neither the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan Wang Jin-pyng nor the KMT, should permit the DPP to obstruct the normal functioning of the legislature. The DPP must not be permitted to repeatedly bring the business of the legislature to a grinding halt. The DPP has no excuse for its obstructionism motivated by sheer spite.

As Premier Chiang noted, "A motion for a no confidence vote is a very serious and substantive constitutional matter." A call for the resignation of the cabinet is not about long winded speeches, obstructing legislative proceedings, or occupying the podium. It is about resolving political impasses according to constitutional procedures. Every motion for a no confidence vote is recorded in the annals of the Republic of China's constitutional history.

Consider the political reality. The Ma government and Chiang cabinet both suffer single digit approval ratings. The Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng has made clear that the legislature has already expressed its confidence in Chiang Yi-hua. The DPP should therefore allow Premier Chiang to ascend to the podium. In the past, for the sake of harmony, Wang Jin-pyng used party consultation procedures to overcome obstacles. It was his first resort. It was probably his only resort. The result was often legislative wheel-spinning. Wang Jin-pyng should clear away obstacles and allow Premier Chiang to deliver his policy address, in accordance with normal legislature procedure.

The KMT is the majority party, hence the ruling party. The opposition DPP often engages in obstructionism. Yet the KMT never takes any counter-measures. This, to some extent, is the reason for public dissatisfaction with the Ma administration. The DPP motion for a no confidence vote failed. Yet the KMT remains impotent, unable to let the premier address the legislature. Public dissatisfaction will not be directed only at the DPP.

Wang Jin-pyng and the KMT legislative caucus must prove that the Legislative Yuan is not the hallmark of a malfunctioning democracy. They must prove that the KMT is not a ruling party in name only.

The Legislative Yuan weilds police power. It has many other means of removing obstacles to the conduct of legislative business. The DPP legislative caucus can forcibly occupy the podium. But why can't the KMT caucus maintain the dignity of the speaker's podium? The DPP legislative caucus can hold slumber parties on the floor of the legislature. But why can't the KMT caucus enter the hall earlier and seize the initiative? This is not a matter of whether the KMT wants to aid and abet the DPP. KMT legislators must ask themselves whether they value their constituents' trust. Are they willing to leave people with the impression they can do absolutely nothing? Calls went out for the resignation of the cabinet. They came from the DPP. But what about calls for the dissolution of the legislature? Did the public really want Premier Chiang replaced? Or was what they really wanted the dissolution of the legislature? The motion for a no confidence vote failed. The legislature will not be dissolved. But if the legislature fails to restore normal order, public discontent will not abate .

On the Judicial Committee, Ker Chien-ming rammed through an independent investigation. Special Investigative Unit prosecutors must now respond to legislative questioning. This was flagrant political pressure. Ker Chien-ming's influence peddling was exposed. His shame turned to anger. Does the DPP intend to allow itself to be hijacked by this "Party Whip for Life?" Is the DPP really that muddle-headed? Ker Chien-ming has been exploiting the DPP for the past month. If he still refuses to let up, a tide of criticism is inevitable. The KMT's prestige will remain low. But the DPP's prestige will also plummet. Does the DPP really intend to allow this party whip persist in his antics?

Ker Chien-ming seldom questions officials. But since the influence peddling scandal broke, he has been extraordinarily diligent about speaking out on the Judicial Committee. He has questioned administration officials more times than during his entire career as a legislator. Whether his questions were groundless is not the point. As a legislator, it is his prerogative. But Ker Chien-ming and other legislators have asked no questions of Premier Chiang. They have merely held press conferences outside the legislature and called Chiang names. Meanwhile, they refuse to allow Premier Chiang to respond and explain, in accordance with the constitution. This is political persecution. This is not something legislators should be doing.

Ker Chien-ming says we will finally be able to see him go head to head with Premier Chiang today. This is a belated but correct decision. We believe various units of the Executive Yuan and Premier Chiang will agree to confront the matter of the no confidence vote. They will solemnly perform their constitutional duties and responsibilities. The people as a whole look forward to both Yuans confronting each other democratically. This will allow the truth behind the controversy to emerge. It will allow the public to see whether legislative whip Ker Chien-ming or Premier Chiang trampled over the constitution.

社論－江宜樺、柯建銘 誰才是憲政罪人
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2013年10月18日 04:10

當美國國會終於打破僵局，達成預算與債務暫時性協議，台灣的立法僵局，能否因閣揆不信任案的否決，使民進黨願意妥協，同意江揆提出施政報告並備詢而打破，已經成為台灣民主政治能否理性運作的指標。即使民進黨不承認倒閣案未通過代表國會對閣揆的信任，但倒閣案的否決，畢竟再一次證明國會多數執政的是國民黨而非民進黨。

國會不是街頭，自有其文明的運作機制，不論是立法院長王金平，乃至國民黨都沒有理由再讓民進黨的杯葛策略，一而再、再而三癱瘓院會議事，民進黨更沒有理由堅持為反對而反對路線。

誠如江揆所言，「不信任案是憲法中非常嚴肅而具實質效力的議案」，倒閣案絕對不僅只是冗長發言、霸佔主席台的議事杯葛手段，而是明載於憲法條文處理或解決政治僵局的憲政議案，每一次倒閣案的提出，在中華民國憲政史上都留下紀錄。

就政治現實而論，不論馬政府、江內閣的民意支持度有幾趴，立法院長王金平已明確詮釋：國會已對江宜樺投下信任票，那麼，民進黨就應該讓江揆上台。如果過去王金平為求議事和諧，而以朝野協商為排除議事障礙的優先、甚至唯一手段，致使國會議事經常性陷入空轉，現在，王金平就應該依照正常議事程序邀請江院長提出施政報告，並依議事規則排除障礙。

做為多數執政的國民黨，如果面對反對黨杯葛，卻始終拿不出反制辦法，某種程度也是民意對馬政府不滿的原因。如果否決了倒閣案，卻還是一籌莫展，不能讓行政院長順利進行施政報告，民意的反彈必然不只衝著民進黨。

此刻，王金平與國民黨團必須證明立法院不是「不能運作的民主」淵藪，國民黨也不是空有虛名的執政黨。

除了動用警察權，立法院排除議事障礙的方法很多，民進黨團能霸佔主席台，為什麼國民黨團不能維護主席台的尊嚴？民進黨團能夜宿議場，國民黨團為什麼不能更早進場搶得先機？這不是國民黨要不要護航的問題，國民黨立委得捫心自問，身受選民負託，是要讓自己在國會一籌莫展嗎？倒閣之聲起，除了民進黨團衝著江揆來？還有多少民意是衝著解散國會而來？真實的民意到底是期待撤換行政院長？還是解散國會重選？儘管倒閣案未過，沒有解散國會的問題，但若立法院始終無法正常議事，類似民怨就不會消減。

柯建銘在司法委員會硬逼獨立偵辦案件的特偵組檢察官列席備詢，已經是公然政治施壓，柯建銘因為個人司法案件關說遭揭露而腦羞成怒，民進黨難道也全黨昏頭放任被萬年總召一人綁架？ 柯建銘主導民進黨已一個月，此時再不放手，屆時批評聲浪必然高漲，國民黨聲望不振，民進黨同樣江河日下，這樣的總召還可以繼續做下去嗎？

柯建銘平常不太對官員提出質詢，關說案發生以來，卻異常勤快在司法委員會登記發言，質詢次數大概已超過他擔任立委以來的總和，不論有理沒理，這是立委的職權。但柯建銘或其他立委對江揆有任何質疑，卻只到場外舉行記者會片面罵人，卻不讓江揆依憲法答覆說明，這是一種政治凌遲，非立委所應為。

柯建銘聲稱，今日將可以看到他和江院長對話的畫面，這是個遲來但正確的決定，相信行政院各部會和江揆都會如同面對倒閣案般，嚴正以待憲政的義務與責任，全民都期待兩院以民主方式交鋒，讓政治爭議背後的真相在國會殿堂再現，也讓他們看看到底江揆與柯總召，誰尊重憲政，誰是憲政罪人？