Green Governance? First Tell Us How You Stand on the Republic of China Constitution

Green Governance? First Tell Us How You Stand on the Republic of China Constitution
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 4, 2013

Summary: In order to wage a successful 2016 election campaign, the DPP is struggling to change its image. It is establishing new provisions against  involvement in organized crime. It is rewording its "China [sic] policy." But as we have pointed out, if the party refuses to sever its links to Chen Shui-bian's corruption, or if it persists in defining Taiwan as "not part of China," their efforts will be in vain. If the DPP hopes to become a party the people can trust to rule, it must tell us, in no uncertain terms, how it stands on the Republic of China Constitution.

Full Text below:

In order to wage a successful 2016 election campaign, the DPP is struggling to change its image. It is establishing new provisions against  involvement in organized crime. It is rewording its "China [sic] policy." But as we have pointed out, if the party refuses to sever its links to Chen Shui-bian's corruption, or if it persists in defining Taiwan as "not part of China," their efforts will be in vain. If the DPP hopes to become a party the people can trust to rule, it must tell us, in no uncertain terms, how it stands on the Republic of China Constitution.

Ever since the DPP was founded in 1986, it has remained a "dang wai" (outside the party) entity that purports to "struggle for the realization of democracy and constitutional rule." The party's attitude toward the constitution however, is hypocritical. First it expressed public support. Later it shrilly repudiated it. Still later, it stooped to cynically exploiting it even as it angrily denounced it. Eventually, it tried to destroy it. Its flip-flops have left the public unable to trust the DPP's lip service to the Republic of China Constitution, and even to constitutional rule per se.

At first, the DPP relentlessly attacked the way the KMT dealt with the Constitution. In its Party Constitution it proclaimed that, "For the past three or four decades, the Legislative Yuan has never held a comprehensive re-election. Instead, the KMT has imposed long-term martial law. The Temporary Provisions have nullified the constitution, and utterly undermined the principle of constitutional rule." The DPP concluded that "A nation governed by the rule of law must adhere to its constitution." "National emergency powers must not be permitted to undermine the constitutional framework."

But this show of "loyal opposition within the constitutional system" lasted a mere five years. In 1991, the DPP passed its "Taiwan Independence Party Platform." It denounced the "five part constitutional framework of the Republic of China" as a "white elephant." It advocated "the authoring of a new constitution in accordance with Taiwan's sovereignty, in order to establish an independent state." Ever since then its goal has been to overthrow the constitution.

In May 1999, the DPP, facing a presidential election, hoped to soften its Taiwan independence stance. It passed its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." It proclaimed that, "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. Currently it is referred to as the Republic of China, in accordance with the Constitution... Any changes affecting its independent status, must be decided by a popular referendum." This resolution openly proclaimed that Taiwan was an independent nation, and that it held sovereignty only over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. It reworded the "proactive Taiwan independence referendum," turning it into a "reactive referendum against reunification." This strategy for Taiwan independence involves "first backdoor list, then stall for time." The party shifted its focus to indoctrinating the public with "cultural Taiwan independence" attitudes internally, while stalling for time with the Mainland authorities on the other side of the Strait. To avoid touching the third rail of de jure independence, the DPP temporarily stopped demanding a new constitution. But the only part of the "Constitution of the Republic of China" the DPP recognized was the name of the nation. The DPP treated the Constitution as temporary scaffolding to be discarded later.

In 2000, Chen Shui-bian was elected president. During the next eight years, Ah-Bian exploited constitutional loopholes to expand his personal power and to sow political chaos. He relentlessly demeaned and undermined the constitution. Just before the 1990 "National Conference," Ah-Bian denounced the constitution as a "Rube Goldberg contraption." Ten years later, during his presidential inauguration, he swore to "uphold the Constitution." But he had no intention of upholding this constitution. He exploited the Additional Articles, which granted the president the power to appoint officials and impose regulations. He used them to line his own pockets. He never missed an opportunity to slander the constitution as a "Rube Goldberg contraption."

Finally, in 2007, Chen Shui-bian spearheaded the DPP's "Resolution for a Normal Nation." He maintained that "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state." He maintained that "Taiwan is still using the unsuitable ROC constitutional framework... resulting in an abnornal constitutional framework." He decided to "promote the rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." He reverted to the "original intent" of the "Taiwan independence Party Platform."

Alas, the Chen Dynasty engaged in monstrous corruption. Public outrage boiled over. The "Rectification of Names Campaign" fell on its face. Ah-Bian strategist Chiu Yi-jen recently publicly declared that, "We were forced to accept this constitution. But we were not sincere in our acceptance of this constitution." He confessed that even when it participated in the amending of the constitution, the DPP "did not completely accept the constitution." "The constitution was something we were forced to accept." No wonder during the "97 constitutional reform," Chiu Yi-jen admitted that there was an "arrangement to switch tracks." But later, when the DPP came to power, apart from the short-lived Tang Fei cabinet, Ah-Bian invariably maintained a minority government. Today, it is clear the DPP's endless promises to uphold the constitution and its amendments were nothing more than strategies to seize power. In their heart of hearts, they feel no loyalty to anything other than Taiwan independence, political power, and personal enrichment.

British philosopher David Hume spoke of "the assumption that every man is a knave." He argued that the design of any system for constitutional rule must assume that every politician is a knave. Chen Shui-bian and his family are living proof that Hume's assumption was not a theoretical proposition, but an ugly reality. During previous constitutional amendment processes, everyone lacked the requisite vigilance. This enabled knaves to exploit loopholes in the constitution, and almost destroy the Republic of China Constitution.

Today, as the Ma administration's prestige hits rock bottom, the DPP rubs its hands and licks its lips. It looks forward to a comeback three years from now. Frank Hsieh acknowledged that "We made many commitments to the constitution, but not one that we fulfilled." Other party princes have yet to make the same admission. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang has merely reverted to the position stated in the DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." In other words, he intends to continue abusing the ROC constitution, using it as a means of "backdoor listing."

We hope Frank Hsieh was speaking the truth. We hope the DPP will choose to do the right thing. We are waiting to see.
   
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2013.06.04
社論－民進黨何去何從 系列3 綠色執政？先說清對中華民國憲法態度
本報訊

    　為了迎戰二○一六年大選，民進黨正努力改變形象，一面制定排黑條款，一面重新表述中國政策。我們已指出：如果該黨無法與陳水扁的貪腐切割，或仍自外於中國，這些努力將難奏效。在此，我們還要進一步指出：民進黨若要成為人民可以放心託付的執政黨，還需要說清楚他們對中華民國憲法的態度。

    　正如本系列社論首篇所言，民進黨在一九八六年建黨之初，仍延續黨外主流，宣稱「 為實現民主憲政而奮鬥 」。但是，該黨對於憲法的態度前後不一：先公開擁護，後來公然否定，再惡化為一邊利用、一邊羞辱，最後積極毀憲。這種變化，使人民無法信賴其對憲法和憲政的誠意。

    　一開始，民進黨持續藉憲法攻擊國民黨的作法，在其《黨綱》中明文指出：「這三、四十年來，非但國會未曾全面改選，而且戒嚴長期持續，臨時條款架空憲法，立憲原則完全被扭曲。」於是他們主張：「法治國家應確實遵守憲法」、「國家緊急權不得破壞憲法體制」。

    　然而，這段扮演「憲政體制內忠實反對黨」的歲月只有五年。一九九一年該黨便通過「台獨黨綱」，將「中華民國五權憲法體制」稱為「大而無當」，主張「依照台灣主權實現獨立建國，制定新憲」，從此便以推翻這部憲法為目標。

    　一九九九年五月，民進黨面臨總統大選，想軟化其台獨主張，於是通過「台灣前途決議文」，主張「台灣是一主權獨立國家，…依目前憲法稱為中華民國，…任何有關獨立現狀的更動，都必須經由…公民投票的方式決定」。此決議直接主張台灣已是獨立國家，主權領域僅及於台澎金馬，然後把「攻擊性的台獨公投」改為「防禦性的反統公投」。這是把台獨的策略定為「先借殼上市，再以時間換取空間」。於是，該黨把階段性重心轉移到內部文化台獨和兩岸間和平演變。為了不觸及法理台獨，暫不推動制憲。但是，對於「中華民國憲法」，僅承認其所定國號。這是把憲法完全視為階段性的工具來利用。

    　公元兩千年，陳水扁當選總統。從此八年期間，扁政府一邊利用憲法漏洞擴權亂政，一邊不斷羞辱、破壞這部憲法。扁早在一九九○年「國是會議」前，至少三度表示現行憲政是「烏魯木齊」制。十年後，他宣誓「必遵守憲法」而就職總統。但是，他毫無使這部憲法正常運行的誠意，不但濫用增修條文賦予總統的人事權、調節權以貪贓枉法，也從不放過機會再度汙衊這部憲法是「烏魯木齊」制。

    　最後，在二○○七年，阿扁主導民進黨通過了「正常國家決議文」，除了繼續堅持「台灣是主權獨立的國家」，並認為「台灣至今仍沿用不當的中華民國憲法架構，…造成『憲政體制不正常』」，決定「積極推動正名、制憲」，回到台獨黨綱的「初衷」。

    　幸好由於扁朝貪腐滔天，民怨沸騰，「正名制憲」沒有成功。阿扁軍師邱義仁最近即公然承認：「我們是不得不接受，而不是真心接受這部憲法」，甚至在參與修憲的過程中，民進黨也「沒有全盤接受這部憲法」、「憲法是不得不的選擇」。怪不得在「九七憲改」中，邱義仁曾證實有「換軌機制」的共識，但是後來在民進黨當政期間，除了短命的唐飛內閣，阿扁始終堅持任命少數政府。如今回顧民進黨一切憲政的承諾、修憲的共識，都不過是奪權謀略。在他們內心深處，除了台獨、權力、金錢，別無忠誠可言。

    　英國思想家休謨曾提出「無賴假定」，主張：在為民主憲政設計制度時，必須假定每一個政治人物都是無賴。但是，陳水扁及其家人、近臣卻活生生地告訴世人：休謨所言，絕非假定！正是由於大家在歷次修憲過程中對於「無賴當政」缺乏戒心，才使得這幫無賴得以利用憲法漏洞幾乎摧毀了中華民國憲政！

    　如今，民進黨面對聲望跌至谷底的馬政府，躍躍欲試，希望三年後捲土重來。但是，除了謝長廷承認：「我們對它（憲法）有很多承諾，我們都沒有做到」外，其他綠營天王們都沒有積極表態。黨主席蘇貞昌也只表示回到「台灣前途決議文」的立場，換言之，就是繼續利用「中華民國憲法」借殼上市。

    　我們希望謝長廷說的是真心話，我們也希望民進黨擇其善者而從之。我們且拭目以待。