Who Believes This Legislature Would Ever Willingly Dissolve Itself?

Who Believes This Legislature Would Ever Willingly Dissolve Itself?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 3, 2013

Summary: Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming conspired to peddle influence with the judiciary. Who is thinks this pair would willingly dissolve the legislature, relinquish their status as Legislators without Portfolio, return to their districts, run for elective office, and subject themselves to impartial "Trial by Voter?"

Full text below:

Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming conspired to peddle influence with the judiciary. Who is thinks this pair would willingly dissolve the legislature, relinquish their status as Legislators without Portfolio, return to their districts, run for elective office, and subject themselves to impartial "Trial by Voter?"

Wang and Ker have hijacked the Legislative Yuan. If these two refuse to relinquish their positions as Speaker of the Legislative Yuan and DPP Legislative Caucus Whip, return to their districts, and run for elective office, how can anyone possibly dissolve the legislature and hold new elections?

Ker Chien-ming is at the center of the current constitutional chaos. Ker Chien-ming has hijacked the DPP. The DPP has hijacked Wang Jin-pyng. Wang Jin-pyng has hijacked the Legislative Yuan. The Legislative Yuan has hijacked constitutional rule. The entire system of constitutional rule therefore, is on the verge of collapse.

The perversion of politics on Taiwan may be more understandable when viewed from its dark underside. Wang Jin-pyng peddled influence with the judiciary on behalf of DPP party whip Ker Chien-ming. But suppose Wang Jin-pyng had peddled influence on behalf of KMT party whip Lin Hung-chi? In that case, DPP party whip Ker Chien-ming would be screaming, "The KMT Speaker of the Legislature has peddled influence on behalf of the KMT party whip!" He would be waving the banner of constitutional rule and criminal justice. He would be launching all out attacks on Wang Jin-pyng and Lin Hung-chi. Moreover, as soon as the DPP launched attacks on Wang and Lin, the KMT would immediately split into two factions, one concerned about constitutional rule and criminal justice, the other about personal friendships. Waiting for the court to issue an injunction would be superfluous. The DPP legislative caucus, plus advocates of constitutional rule and criminal justice within the KMT legislative caucus, would denounce Wang Jin-pyng as an "influence peddling speaker who has brought shame upon the legislature." They would refuse to allow Wang Jin-pyng to take to the podium and preside over legislative affairs. This would be sufficient to justify throwing shoes at Lin Hung-chi's head. Wang Jin-pyng would be forced to bear political responsibility. He would have his party membership revoked. His reputation would be in ruins. He would be forced to withdraw from the legislative and political arena. Lin Hung-chi might retain his position as elected legislator. But he would certainly have his party membership revoked.

One can safely conclude that under such circumstances, even an injunction favorable to Wang Jin-pyng would not save him. In such an atmosphere, the court would probably rule that "Criminal justice must not interfere with politics." It would cite the Chiu Chang case as precedent, and rule against Wang Jin-pyng.

This, in a nutshell, is the entire process by which politics on Taiwan has been perverted. Had Wang Jin-pyng peddled influence on behalf of Lin Hung-chi, the DPP would have forced Wang Jin-pyng to step down within days. But because Wang Jin-pyng peddled influence with the judiciary on behalf of Ker Chien-ming, this is how things stand. This, in a nutshell, is the entire process by which politics on Taiwan has been perverted.

The current political storm has resulted in two conflicting narratives. Narrative One stresses influence peddling. Narrative Two stresses wire tapping. For the moment, Wang and Ker are in the same boat. Their shared strategy is to harp on wire tapping to whitewash their own influence peddling. But whatever the result of an inquiry into wire tapping might be, it is unlikely to make their influence peddling go away.

Two years remain in the current legislative term. Wang and Ker, who remain under the shadow of scandal, are certain to manipulate the workings of Legislative Yuan. But Wang must prove that he remains in control of the Legislative Yuan. Ker on the other hand, must stir up trouble in the Legislative Yuan to gain leverage against the Ma administration. The conflicting goals of Wang and Ker could influence the larger political picture. . Wang Jin-pyng has been taken hostage by Ker Chien-ming and the DPP. But Wang must also fulfill his basic duties as Speaker of the Legislature. For example, he cannot allow the DPP to keep the Premier from addressing the legislature forever. He cannot allow TISA to perish stillborn. If he does, the public just might return to its senses. It might begin asking whether constitutional rule, national development, and cross-Strait relations must be sacrificed for the sake of these two partners in crime?

Let us look back at the influence peddling storm. The Speaker of the Legislature and the opposition party whip may not peddle influence with the judiciary. This is constitutionally beyond dispute. This is a universal truth. Now look at where the case stands now. One can no longer say that one side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong. But this is true for Wang and Ker as well. The two have depicted Ma Ying-jeou as 100% wrong for "undermining the constitution and creating political chaos." The two have depicted themselves as "totally innocent victims." Neither depiction stands up to scrutiny. Currently, neither Wang nor Ker are willing to apologize. Instead, they want Premier Chiang Yi-hua to apologize for "undermining the constitution and creating political chaos." But the more time people have to contemplate the matter, the less Wang and Ker will have any leg to stand on. The pendulum is swinging back. Wang and Ker have conflicting interests in the Legislature. Eventually they must face the people and be judged.

Therefore, Wang and Ker should assume responsibility for wrongdoing in the executive and legislature. They should resolve the current constitutional impasse. They should facilitate a reasonable and fair solution. The legislature could hold a no confidence vote. The executive would be held responsible. The President could respond to the Premier's request to dissolve the legislature. The legislature would be held responsible. Such scenarios would be justified, but highly unlikely.

DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has threatened to launch a no confidence vote within two weeks, and to demand the impeachment and removal of the president. Not one of these proposals is intended to resolve problems. They are merely intended to incite conflict. The easiest measure to implement is a "no confidence vote, the dissolution of the legislature, and the holding of new elections." Most legislators are absolutely unwilling to bear the cost and responsibility of running for reelection. Who is crazy enough to think that Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming would ever be willing to assume responsibility, return to their districts, and run for elective office?

誰能想像這樣的國會願意被解散
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.10.03 04:20 am

除非頭殼壞掉，誰能想像王金平和柯建銘這一對涉及司法關說醜聞的難兄難弟會願意解散國會，然後二人皆以喪失不分區立委身分的代價，返回選區參選區域立委，接受「選民的公正裁判」？

如今的立法院已被王柯挾持，倘若二人沒有放棄立院院長及民進黨黨團總召之身分並參選區域立委的意願，立法院豈可能解散改選？

眼下的憲政亂象，軸心就在柯建銘。柯建銘挾持了民進黨，民進黨挾持了王金平，王金平挾持了立法院，立法院挾持了整個憲政運作，致令整個憲政運作瀕於癱瘓。

台灣的政治異象，往往可從反面來看，反而能窺其底蘊。假設今日情勢不是王金平為民進黨黨鞭柯建銘司法關說，而是王金平為國民黨黨鞭林鴻池關說；那麼，柯建銘總召必定會高擎「國民黨籍立法院長為國民黨黨鞭司法關說」的憲政正義大旗，全力發動對王金平與林鴻池的毀滅性攻擊。而且，只要民進黨發動對王林二人的攻擊，國民黨內在憲政正義與私人情義的拔河下必定立趨分裂。那麼，也就不必等法院「假處分」，只消民進黨團再加上國民黨內的「憲政正義派」兩股勢力結合，一致在議場高舉「院長關說／國會之恥」的標語，拒絕王金平上台主持院會，再用鞋子砸林鴻池的頭，其結果必是：王金平將因承負政治責任而撤銷黨籍以致身敗名裂地退出立院及政壇，林鴻池則可能保住區域立委的身分，但也必遭撤銷黨籍。

而且可以斷言，在那樣的形勢下，王金平即使假處分勝訴也救不了自己。並亦可以想像，在那樣的社會氛圍中，法院的裁定也極可能是「司法不介入政黨自治」，援邱彰案的判例即可，而判定王金平敗訴。

這就是台灣幾乎所有政治異象的「演化公式」。也就是說，倘若是王金平為林鴻池司法關說，即會演成民進黨硬生生不消三兩天就將王金平逼下台。但是，如今卻是王金平為柯建銘司法關說，整個事態也就必然演變成今日這個模樣。這些，皆可謂是台灣政治異象的「演化公式」。

這場風暴已經分化成「關說風暴」與「監聽風暴」兩股。王柯目前仍是命運共同體，其共同策略是欲以「監聽風暴」去吃掉「關說風暴」；但是，不論「監聽風暴」如何發展，恐怕皆無可能吃掉「關說風暴」。

在本屆立院尚餘的兩年多任期中，立院勢必仍由王柯這對背負關說陰影的難兄難弟所操持。但王要表現其壓得住陣腳的才能，柯卻要以立院為搗亂政局以使馬政府致命的槓桿，而整個政局就可能成為王柯二人漸生矛盾的折射；今後，王金平在柯建銘及民進黨的挾持下，如果不能善盡一位立法院長的基本職能（例如，難道行政院長永遠不能作施政報告？難道要令《服貿協議》永沉大海？），國人就可能會回過頭來想一想：整個憲政運作、國家發展及兩岸關係要不要葬送在這對關說兄弟的手中？

回頭來看這場關說風暴。「立法院長及政黨黨鞭不可介入司法關說」，這是憲政天條，也是普世價值。退一步言，即使本案發展至今，已不能說是一個「一○○：○」的絕對的是非黑白，但王柯二人如今卻將此操作成「馬英九毀憲亂政」一○○％的錯，王柯「無辜受害」一○○％的對，亦難以成立。此時，非但王柯不道歉，反而要閣揆江宜樺為「毀憲亂政」道歉。但是，當國人思尋的時間愈久，王柯的此種手法恐怕就愈來愈難立足，當鐘擺盪了回來，這個被王柯二人利害矛盾所糾纏的立法院生態，終究要面對國人的檢驗與評價。

因此，王柯二人若能抱持著由「行政當局」及「立法院」分擔錯誤及分擔責任的態度，來化解當前憲政僵局，其實應是相對合理與平衡的解方。於是，就有立院發動倒閣（行政當局負責），總統再應行政院長之請解散國會進行改選之提議（立法院負責）。然而，此議雖屬有理，卻恐是妄想。

民進黨主席蘇貞昌揚言，兩周內將發動倒閣、彈劾及罷免總統；這些無一是為了化解問題，而只是在製造政潮而已。即以其中最易實現的「倒閣／解散立院改選」一途而言，莫說一般立委根本不願承擔改選的代價與責任，尤其誰能妄想王金平與柯建銘會願意分擔責任回頭參選區域立委，難道是頭殼壞掉？