DPP Rejects President Ma Debriefing

DPP Rejects President Ma Debriefing
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 15, 2015

Executive Summary: Recently, cross-Strait peace and legislative reform have become hot button political issues. The Ma Xi summit shone a light on legislative chaos. It showed that without legislative reform, cross-Strait peace will be difficult to realize. Who knew that political reform on Taiwan would have such a close relationship with peaceful cross-Strait relations? This is yet another windfall from the Ma Xi summit.

Full Text Below:

Late on the night of November 3, surprising news of the Ma Xi summit surfaced. A Liberty Times newsflash described the meeting as "sneaky”. The paper even twisted the facts, and said that Ma Ying-jeou "bumped into" Mainland President Xi Jinping while the latter was on a state visit to Singapore. The Liberty Times had access to news sources, yet it deliberately departed from the truth. It depicted the Ma Xi summit as a "black box operation that violated the principle of openness and transparency". It alleged that the summit "left Taiwan's citizens and legislature completely out the loop, denied them the right of approval, departed from democratic norms, and was therefore legally questionable". Thus armed, green camp legislators immediately used this to sling mud at the Ma Xi summit.

The Liberty Times opposes anything to do with the Mainland. But its own news scoop reveals that its allegation that the Ma Xi summit was a black box operation was a lie. Newspapers usually obtain such information from the legislature. Our understanding is that during November 3, several DPP legislators already knew about the Ma Xi summit. Speaker Wang Jin-pyng said he learned of the summit belatedly, at 10:30 PM, when he watched the news. But subsequent news reports reveal that President Ma and the Secretary-General of the Presidential Office had already briefed Speaker Wang on the summit that very afternoon. The charge that the legislature was kept completely out the loop was a lie.

The allegation that the Ma Xi summit "required prior consent from the legislature" is based primarily on Article 63 of the Republic of China Constitution and on Constitutional Court Interpretation 520. Article 62 states: "The Legislative Yuan must approve laws, budgets, declarations of martial law, amnesties, declarations of war, the concluding of peace treaties, and other important matters of national rights" The DPP argues that the Ma Xi summit was an "important matter" that required advance Legislative Yuan approval. Constitutional scholars however note that these constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations apply only to specific policies or changes to existing policies or laws. Only then does the term "important matter" apply.

Furthermore, Constitutional Court Interpretation 520 originated with the Chen Shui-bian government's halting of construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. This was a major policy already approved by and budgeted for by the Executive Yuan. President Chen's unilateral halting of construction on the plant triggered intense controversy. The Constitutional Court explained, "Changes in policy objectives or major policy that involve statutory budgets or discontinued implementation, require that the Executive Yuan respond to the Legislative Yuan on important matters of national policy". It said "The Executive Yuan or heads of relevant ministries must report to the Legislative Yuan in due course and respond to questions". The Service Trade Agreement, which led to the Sunflower Student Movement, required legislative review. Only then would legislative participation apply.

Knowing the intent of the law, would the Ma Xi summit fall under the definition of "important matters"? In fact, the MAC made clear before the Ma Xi summit that the government would uphold the "four noes and one constant". It explicitly declared that the Ma Xi summit would not involve political negotiations, the issuance of any agreements or joint statements, or the making of any private commitments. The Ma Xi summit's most important goal would be the "consolidation of cross-Strait peace and the maintenance of the status quo". Our side would insist on "dignity and equality" in all arrangements, and there would be no agreements or commitments. Since the goal was the "consolidation of cross-strait peace and the maintenance of the status quo", the Ma Xi summit was not a matter that required a Constitutional Court interpretation. In fact, legal scholars have noted that since "political and diplomatic affairs change constantly, they cannot possibly be subject to legal micro-management".

This legal interpretation refutes the claim that prior legislative approval was required. The Ma Xi summit did not evade legislative oversight. In fact, when the Ma Xi summit was officially announced, the presidential office explicitly declared that President Ma would "respect the legislature" and “Taiwan's democratic values". It declared that Ma would appear before the legislature in the most "open and transparent" manner, and report on the Ma Xi summit in detail, issue by issue. In addition, press conferences were convened before and after the summit. The summit was explained to foreign diplomats stationed in Taipei. All these were evidence of Ma Xi summit openness and transparency.

The DPP legislative caucus boasted that it would provide legislative oversight against black box operations. Yet it obdurately refused to attend briefings held before the Ma Xi summit, and President Ma's briefing to the Legislative Yuan following the summit. The DPP trumpets legislative oversight, openness, and transparency. But when the president reported to the legislature on his own initiative, the DPP arbitrarily established political preconditions. Ker Chien-min even reverted to the language of the feudal era, saying that "Unless Ma is willing to confess his sins", the DPP caucus would boycott the Ma situation report. Meanwhile, Taiwan Solidarity Union legislator Chou Ni-an and Lai Cheng-chang forcibly occupied the podium in the legislature to protest what they termed "Ma Xi summit undermining and trampling of the legislature".

This reveals the confused values, confused utterances, and confused conduct of green camp legislators. The legislature refused to invite the President to report on the state of the nation. Did it not forfeit the opportunity to oversee the president? Did it not forfeit its right to speak? The DPP has long stressed that cross-Strait affairs must be open and transparent, and subject to legislative oversight. So why did green camp legislators refuse to add "Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations" to the legislative agenda?

Recently, cross-Strait peace and legislative reform have become hot button political issues. The Ma Xi summit shone a light on legislative chaos. It showed that without legislative reform, cross-Strait peace will be difficult to realize. Who knew that political reform on Taiwan would have such a close relationship with peaceful cross-Strait relations? This is yet another windfall from the Ma Xi summit.

拒絕馬總統報告 民進黨言行錯亂
2015年11月15日 中國時報

11月3日深夜馬習會消息意外曝光並引發震撼，《自由時報》的即時新聞，用「偷偷摸摸」來形容，還歪曲馬習會，說馬英九要趁中國國家主席習近平到新加坡進行國是訪問時與他「不期而遇」。《自由時報》掌握了消息來源，卻故意背離事實，就是希望從一開始就定位馬習會是「黑箱作業」、「違反公開透明原則」，是「事前完全排除台灣公民與國會的同意與了解，即逕行敲定，已經背離民主國家的常規」，將具有「法律爭議」。這個論調，馬上就成為綠營立委們的武器，成為潑向馬習會的汙水。

其實，從「逢中必反」的《自由時報》能夠獨家掌握馬習會的訊息，就能夠洞穿馬習會是否為黑箱的真相。一般研判，該報能掌握這條重大訊息，和國會管道有絕對的關係。據了解，11月3日白天，一些民進黨立委們已經掌握馬習會的消息。王金平院長雖然在第一時間表示，他是深夜10點半看到即時新聞方知馬習會消息，但後來的新聞顯示，當天下午、傍晚，馬總統和總統府祕書長已分別向王院長初步進行報告。所謂事前「完全排除」國會的了解，基本上不符合事實。

至於所謂的馬習會「事前須經國會同意」，主要的立論依據是《中華民國憲法》第63條「立法院有議決法律案、預算案、戒嚴案、大赦案、宣戰案、媾和案、條約案及國家其他重要事項之權」的規定，再加上大法官520號解釋，認定馬習會屬於「重要事項」需經立法院議決，才能推動落實。但是，憲法學者已經指出，這個憲法條文或大法官解釋的適用對象，是政府準備要採取某種具體的重要政策，或是準備將既有的政策或法律加以改變，唯有如此方才符合憲法賦予立法院的議決「重要事項」之權利。

進一步論，大法官520號釋字的背景是陳水扁政府時代的核四停建。興建核四是那個時期行政院通過的重大政策並且已編列預算，當然係屬重大公共政策。由於陳總統片面宣布停建核四，引發強烈爭議。大法官解釋遂認為，「施政方針或重要政策變更涉及法定預算之停止執行時，則應本行政院對立法院負責之憲法意旨暨尊重立法院對國家重要事項之參與決策權」，「由行政院院長或有關部會首長適時向立法院提出報告並備質詢」。至於引發太陽花學運的《服貿協議》，則是因為必須經過立法院審議通過，才有了國會參與的問題。

掌握了法律的規定與意旨，再回頭來看馬習會是否屬於所謂的「重要事項」。其實，陸委會在馬習會前已經說明得相當清楚：政府將會秉持「四不一堅持的原則」，也就是明白宣示馬習會不涉政治談判、不簽署協議、不發表共同聲明，也不會有私下承諾；同時，馬習會最重要目標是「鞏固兩岸和平、維持台海現狀」。我方是堅持在「對等、尊嚴」原則下進行安排與規畫，既然沒有協議、承諾，目標更是「鞏固與維持兩岸和平現狀」，馬習兩人的碰面會談，就不可能是憲法或大法官解釋適用的範圍。事實上，法律學者也已指出，「政治外交事務型態變化太多了，不可能每件事都能由法律鉅細靡遺加以管理。」

這樣一個從法律面出發的解釋，是要澄清所謂國會決議的先決條件說，當然，否定這個先決條件，絕不代表馬習會就是要規避、否定國會的監督。事實上，馬習會正式宣布初始，總統府就表明馬總統基於「尊重國會」與「台灣民主價值」的原則，願以最「公開透明」的方式，親赴立法院說明馬習會各項議題。除此之外，會前會後的記者會，以及向駐華使節說明，都是馬習會公開透明的一環。

荒謬的是，口口聲聲國會監督、反對黑箱的民進黨立院黨團，卻是刻意缺席馬習會說明會在先，拒絕馬總統於馬習會後赴立院做國情報告在後。民進黨嘴上大談國會監督、公開透明，卻在總統府主動表達前往立法院進行國情報告的情況下，任意設置國情報告的「政治前提」，其中柯建銘又祭出封建時代的用語，表示「除非馬願下詔罪己」，不然民進黨團不會同意邀馬進行國情報告。與此同時，台聯立委周倪安、賴振昌等則霸占國會主席台，抗議所謂「馬習會架空國會、踐踏國會」。

這完全暴露了綠營立委的價值錯亂、言行錯亂。試問，立法院拒絕邀請總統國情報告是否是國會自行放棄監督機會、放棄國會的話語權？試問，長期以來，民進黨不斷強調兩岸事務必須公開透明、國會監督，那麼，為什麼綠營立委始終不讓「兩岸協議監督條例」端上國會議程？

最近，兩岸和平和國會改革是熱門的政治議題。馬習會前後所凸顯的國會亂象，說明了沒有國會改革，兩岸和平就難有穩健前進的機會。原來，台灣政治的改革，竟然和兩岸的和平發展有如此大的關係，這個課題的凸顯，可能是馬習會另一個意外的收穫。