Can Public Sentiment Lead to Legislation Against Obstruction of Justice?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 11, 2013
Summary: Language affects cognition. Cognition affects judgment. Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming's exerting of undue influence on the criminal justice system has led to widespread controversy. Many have expressed concern over influence peddling. The laws against influence pedding are inadequate. Legislators are "expressly prohibited" from exerting undue influence on the criminal justice system. Yet no penalties are specified. No one is minding the store. The laws urgently need amending. Only then can we prevent politicians from continuing to abuse the system.
Full text below:
Language affects cognition. Cognition affects judgment. Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming's exerting of undue influence on the criminal justice system has led to widespread controversy. Many have expressed concern over influence peddling. The laws against influence pedding are inadequate. Legislators are "expressly prohibited" from exerting undue influence on the criminal justice system. Yet no penalties are specified. No one is minding the store. The laws urgently need amending. Only then can we prevent politicians from continuing to abuse the system.
Most people think "lobbying" is nothing more than "seeking assistance" or "requesting intercession." But lobbying more often than not, refers to official actions that influence policies or interests relevant to the lobbyist. If a criminal justice case is involved, lobbying may well involve "obstruction of justice" or "undue influence." In Western countries under the rule of law, different types of lobbying are subject to different laws. The definitions are crystal clear. But on Taiwan, vague definitions lead many people to conclude that they are "pretty much the same thing."
Controversy over wire tapping persists. Influence peddling on the other hand, has almost been totally forgotten. But overseas, people see thi8ngs very differently. Hong Kong writer Ma Jiahui said, "A Speaker of the Legislature lobbying a Minister of Justice, assuming it actually happened, constitutes "obstruction of justice," an extremely serious crime under Hong Kong's common law. Taiwan reporters stationed in the United States also noted that under U.S. law, the case involves at least two crimes. One is "undue influence." The other is "obstruction of justice," an even more serious crime punishable by imprisonment.
Ma Jiahui said he was puzzled because "influence peddling on Taiwan is actually not regulated by law." He was even more flabbergasted by the fact that "so far there have been no demands for legislation to regulate such lobbying." Hong Kongers who dig deeper will uncover one of the key problems in this case: guanxi vs. morality. Ma Ying-jeou's image has suffered from allegations of "heartlessness." These have prevailed over his insistence on upholding justice. He probably feels bewildered. His admiration for democracy on Taiwan has probably been severely tested.
Among ethnic Chinese societies, British influenced Hong Kong has the strongest rule of law tradition. It is said that "Hong Kong may lack democracy, but it has the rule of law." People on Taiwan are proud of their democracy. But the Ma Wang incident shows that by international standards "Taiwan may have democracy, but it lacks the rule of law." It shows that a champion of the rule of law turned president who is determined to uphold justice, cannot win. Wang Jin-pyng rationalized away his exerting of undue influence as an "expression of concern." A substantial proportion of the public has uncritically swallowed his argument. Elected representatives accused of exerting undue influence spin their conduct as "serving their constituents." They act as if it is the most natural thing in the world. The culture of "guanxi" is deep-rooted. But is it it really insoluble?
Western scholars evaluating the cultural influence of Confucianism on emerging Asian nations often note how nepotism undermines clean government and industrial modernization. People on Taiwan may tolerate "guanxi" in the private sector. But at the very least they should not tolerate it in the public sector. They must not tolerate the politically privileged engaging in the obstruction of justice. Otherwise, how can we call ourselves a democracy under the rule of law? How can NGOs monitoring the government according to the law call themselves "civil society?"
Real progress has been made toward the rule of law . But loopholes also abound. Keelung Mayor Chang Yung-tung exerted undue influence in a drunk driving case. He slammed his palm down on a desk and cussed people out in a police station. He was prosecuted for "obstructing the performance of official duties." An unsuccessful Control Yuan impeachment effort led to a public outcry. Over the years, how many traffic tickets have been torn up as a result of elected officials peddling influence on behalf of the public? More and more sweetheart deals. corruption, and dereliction of duty have been prosecuted. Take the recent CNPC general manager appointment case. Reporters noted how some parties persuaded legislators to "mediate." An enraged Minister of Economic Affairs immediately reassigned personnel. The public praised the minister for his iron rule, They agreed that his was the only way to put an end to the culture of "guanxi." Take the Lin Yi-shi corruption case. The law of course prohibits extorting "political contributions." But one aspect in particular most shocked the public, namely when Lin intervened in state-owned enterprises and declared that "I am in charge of the national treasury." Lin openly boasted that he was enaged in what the rest of the world calls "peddling influence." This is "lobbying on behalf of the politically privileged." Is there really no solution to this problem?
People here may consider "guanxi" as no big deal. But "obstructing the performance of official duties" and the "obstruction of justice" are different. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng "expressing concern" for colleagues may not have involved any pecuniary considerations. But Article 17 of the "Legislative Practices Act" expressly prohibits "lobbying in ongoing criminal justice cases." Is this really nothing? Today's civil society is a public embarrassment. It is a case of "Long live influence peddling!"
How will these months of political turmoil be resolved? Influence peddling touched off a political struggle. Will the public pretend it was no big deal and sweep the entire affair under the rug? If so, what hope for the rule of law is there? Perhaps legislators cannot be counted on to uphold justice. But the public on Taiwan, and all who care about the rule of law, must make every effort to pass laws against the "obstruction of justice." The culture of "guanxi" must be elminated. This is a matter of right and wrong. This is a matter of the rule of law. Young people are about to become members of society. Will that society be dirty or clean? Can they expect justice? This is where the answer lies.
民意能否催生「妨礙司法公正」的立法？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.10.11 03:41 am
語言會影響認知，認知則影響判斷。這次王柯的司法關說事件之所以衍生諸多紛擾，原因就在社會上許多人將「關說」籠統視同「關心」，而法律上對關說的規範也嫌不足，也因而立委關說司法竟出現「有明文禁止」卻「無罰則規定」的缺口。此一空窗景象，亟待後續的立法補強，才能防堵政治人物關說司法的惡行繼續肆虐。
一般人以為的關說，多泛指「請託」或「說情」（intercede）。但在涉及公務行為時，可能影響到政策執行或相關當事人利益的關說，通常叫做「遊說」（lobby）；若是牽涉司法案件，關說行為則可能衍生「妨礙司法公正」（obstruction of justice）或「不當運用影響力」（influence peddling）兩種罪行。在西方法治國家，不同性質的「關說」行為均受到不同法令的規範，定義也很明確；但在台灣，由於詞義的籠統，許多人卻以為「差不多」。
因此，在監聽案沸騰、而關說案幾遭遺忘之際，海外看此事卻有不同觀點。香港作家馬家輝說，「國會議長打電話向法務部長遊說官司，假如屬實，根據香港的普通法是極嚴重的『妨礙司法公正』的罪行」。台灣媒體駐美的記者也說，根據美國法律，這個案子裡至少有兩種犯行，一是「不當運用影響力」；更嚴重則是「妨礙司法」，可能要坐牢。
馬家輝說他很疑惑，不僅因為「關說行為在台灣竟不受法律規管」，更在於至今未見顯著的聲音「要求立法規管關說行為」。香港人若進一步知悉，此案在台灣紛擾的重點之一竟糾纏於「人情義理」之說，且馬英九形象受傷於「無情無義」的指責，幾難以彌補他對是非的堅持，則應該會更感奇怪，對台灣民主的羨慕恐怕也變得五味雜陳了吧。
華人社會當中，香港受英國建制法治精神的影響，至今的處境被描述為「無民主，有法治」。台灣以民主自豪，但這次的馬王事件顯示，以國際標準來看恐怕是「有民主，無法治」；或是說，法律人出身的總統想維持司法秩序，卻難以著力。王金平辯解關說行為是「關心」，相當比例的民眾接受這種說法；就如民意代表若被指關說，幾無二致地辯稱「選民服務」，一副理所當然的氣味。關說文化之根深柢固，難道真的無法可解？
西方學者評論儒家文化影響亞洲新興國家發展，常指「裙帶關係」是妨礙政治清廉、企業現代化的關鍵因素。但台灣就算民間生活展現「人情」，至少在行使公權力的領域裡，不應容忍特權人士妨礙司法公正，否則有何資格號稱民主法治？監督政府依法行政的民間團體，有何資格號稱「公民社會」？
現實裡有法治進步，卻也仍有漏洞處處的例子。基隆市長張榮通為酒駕關說，在警局拍桌罵人，不但遭「妨礙公務」罪名起訴，監察院彈劾未通過也引起社會譁然。歷年來多少交通罰單遭民代關說或警員銷單，已有越來越多案例以圖利、貪汙、瀆職等罪名起訴。最近中油總經理的人事案，有媒體報導指涉當事人找立委「喬事情」，引起經濟部長不滿而火速換人，有輿論還因此大誇經濟部長鐵腕，認為唯有如此才能杜絕關說文化。而在林益世涉貪案中，索賄以「政治獻金」掩護當然法所不容，但最震驚社會觀感的部分，尤在於黑手介入國營事業合約，及其宣稱「國庫的章是我在管的」這兩部分，活生生便是國外法律所稱「販賣影響力」的現形，這就是「特權關說」四字，寧有他解？
其實，再怎麼矯飾國人習以為常的「人情」因素，在執行公權力時「妨礙公務」、「妨礙司法公正」之間，並非一無分際。王金平院長「關心」同僚縱無金錢對價關係，但「立法委員行為法」十七條明訂「不得對進行中之司法案件進行遊說」，難道是假？今之公民社會，能大言不慚說「關說萬歲」嗎？
不論連月的政潮要如何紓解，對這個引爆政爭的關說案，全民若以假裝若無其事收場，台灣法治還有什麼希望可言？就算不能再指望立委諸公，台灣民意和所有關心法治前途的人都必須盡一切努力催生「妨礙司法公正」的立法，將關說文化徹底斷根。此事關乎人心是非，也關乎法治尺度，年輕人所謂「進入社會」之後會感受到汙濁或清明的環境氣息，對「公平」二字會有樂觀或悲觀的期待，答案亦在其中！
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Six Judges Create a Constitutional Deadlock
Six Judges Create a Constitutional Deadlock
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 9, 2013
Summary: The Chiu Chang "ballot flashing" case was ruled a political matter. The stakes in the Wang Jin-pyng case involve constitutional rule. Yet is is being handled as if it were a convenience store working hours dispute or a divorce case. The footprints of "dinosaur judges" are clear for all to see.
Full text below:
The courts issued an injunction reinstating Wang Jin-pyng as a legislator. The KMT has withdrawn its appeal. But it expects the court to try Wang Jin-pyng as soon as possible. It wants "confirmation as to whether there is even such a thing as KMT party membership." It wants to give the people an answer. A party spokesman said, "I hope the focus can be brought back to the current appeal."
The KMT has withdrawn its appeal. This does not mean it has given up on its demands for a non-political inquiry. Ma maintains that "The Speaker of the Legislature exerting undue influence on the criminal justice system is an extremely negative and serious development. Right and wrong must be clarified, as soon as possible." The KMT is not giving up on its demands for a reaffirmation of right vs. wrong.
A third ruling is pending. The appeal may be upheld or rejected. It will have no effect on Wang's current term. But the rulings on appeals at each level will establish important legal precedents on the separation of powers within the constitutional framework. The focus of the debate is whether political party autonomy and the workings of the legislature are subject to judicial review. In other words, the KMT revoked Wang Jin-pyng's party membership. Wang's loss of party membership inevitably led to the loss of his position as Speaker of the Legislature. The question is whether this is consistent with "justiciability."
Justiciability is a judicial review concept drawn from constitutional law. The matter of what is subject to judicial review is important. Under the principle of the separation of powers, certain matters are subject to judicial review, but other matters are not. They are "non-justiciable."
Take the 2002 DPP's revocation of legislator Chiu Chang's status as Legislator without Portfolio. That year an election for Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislature was being held. Chiu Chang voted for DPP candidate Hongqi Chang. This was confirmed afterwards. But he refused to obey legislative caucus orders to "flash his ballot." As a result the DPP expelled him from the party for " breach of legislative caucus procedure." Chiu Chang filed suit. The court dismissed his suit within three days on grounds that "The court must not interfere in political matters. Expulsion from a political party is an internal matter." This ruling shows that the courts held that political party autonomy is non-justiciable. The court ruled that it "must not interfere in political matters." This judicial review mentioned the doctrine of political matters. This is considered a matter of necessary judicial restraint.
Under the tripartite separation of powers, the courts consider certain political matters non-justiciable. There are many reasons for this. The main reason is that the judiciary and the legislature are different. Legislators are usually elected. Judges are usually appointed. The "politics of responsibility" means legislators must bear political responsibility. Judges on the other hand, need not bear political responsibility. Therefore, if the conduct of legislators involves "matters of procedure" the courts should recuse themselves and not become involved. They must respect the politics of responsibility in action. When the courts intervene, political responsibility evaporates. Furthermore, intervention by the courts could result in the politicization of the criminal justice system and the undermining of the separation of powers. Other scholars point out that "When the courts intervene in politics, they do more harm than when they do not." Therefore they must exercise judicial restraint.
The Chiu Chang case can be compared to the Wang Jin-pyng case. In the Chiu Chang case, the court ruled that political party autonomy meant the case was non-justiciable. This attests to the existence of such a concept within our nation's criminal justice system. Yet in the case of Wang Jin-pyng, six judges from the District Court and the High Court, for no reason whatsoever, intervened in a party disciplinary procedure. They refused to recuse themselves despite the danger of politicizing the criminal justice system. Chiu Chang was expelled merely because he refused to flash his ballot. Suppose Chiu Chang had committed crimes or infringed the freedom of the DPP? Should the court have upheld Chiu Chang's "right to privacy?" The court stayed completely out of Chiu Chang's dispute with the DPP. It ruled that "The court must not become involved in politics" and dismissed Chiu Chang's appeal. By contrast, in Wang Jin-pyng's case, the High Court Full Court openly declared that "Undue influence on the justice system is not a universal value with clear right and wrong. It does not fall within the scope of this case." This declaration shows that the full court knew perfectly well that the case was a political matter. Otherwise, how could it say that "Undue influence on the justice system is not a universal value with clear right and wrong," then declare that it "must not intervene in political matters," and that it "does not fall within the scope of this case?" The above clearly shows that the case is non-justiciable. Yet the ruling in this case clearly violates the principle of judicial non-interference in politics and resulted in the politicization of criminal justice.
This case involves the question of whether undue influence on the justice system is a universal value with clear right and wrong. It involves the question of political party autonomy. It involves the President and the Speaker of the Legislature's rules of procedure. It involves the termination or continuation of the Speaker of the Legislature's official status. It involves constitutional rule, criminal justice, and national security. If this is not a"political matter as defined in the court's own judicial review, what is? Yet in the Wang Jin-pyng case, six judges overrode political party autonomy. The overrode the president's and the premier's rules of procedure. They hijacked the entire legislature. Are these six judges overlords whose authority trumps the president's? Are they overlords whose authority trumps the party chairman's? The Wang Jin-pyng case must provide answers to these questions.
The Chiu Chang "ballot flashing" case was ruled a political matter. The stakes in the Wang Jin-pyng case involve constitutional rule. Yet is is being handled as if it were a convenience store working hours dispute or a divorce case. The footprints of "dinosaur judges" are clear for all to see.
六名法官造成的憲政僵局
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.10.09 02:33 am
國民黨撤回對王金平「假處分」的再抗告，同時也希望法院能盡速審理王金平所提「確認國民黨籍是否存在」之本訴，給民眾一個答案。發言人說：希望焦點拉回本訴。
國民黨對「假處分」撤告，但並不表示已放棄對於此一政治是非的探究，馬英九仍說「國會議長涉關說司法，非常負面、嚴重，需盡速釐清是非」，亦即不放棄在本訴中論個黑白。
本訴尚待三審定讞，因此，無論本訴勝敗如何，對王的任期皆已無影響；但是，本訴在各審級的審判中，仍將對「三權分立」的憲政架構作出一個重要的判例，其焦點的議論是：政黨自治（國民黨撤銷王金平黨籍）及國會運作（王金平因保有黨籍即必然造成保有立院院長身分之後果）是否符合「可司法審理性」（justiciability）。
「可司法審理性」是憲法學上關於「司法審查」（judicial review）的一個重要概念，意指在「三權分立」的原則下，有些事務可接受司法審理，但有些事務卻非司法機構所宜審理，亦即所謂「不可司法審理性」（non- justiciability）。
先回顧二○○二年民進黨開除不分區立委邱彰案。是年舉行立法院正副院長選舉，邱彰圈選了民進黨的候選人洪其昌（事後證實），但拒絕依黨團指示「亮票」，於是民進黨以「違反黨團議事運作」開除了邱彰的黨籍。邱彰告到法院，法院在三日內即予駁回，理由是「法院不干涉政治，開除黨籍是政黨內部事務」。此一判決顯示，法院認為政黨自治屬於「不可司法審理性」的範圍。而法院所稱「法院不干涉政治」，亦即「司法審查」中所說的「政治問題原則」（political question doctrine），這被視為「司法自制」（judicial restraint）的必要範圍。
在「三權分立」的架構之下，法院對於某些「政治問題」採取「不可司法審理性」的立場。其理由之一是，政治部門與司法部門最大的差異是在，政治部門往往由選舉產生，且在「責任政治」的原則下必須承負政治責任；但司法部門卻非選舉產生，亦不必負政治責任。因此，政治部門的作為若涉「統治行為」，司法即應「自制」而不「介入」，以尊重「責任政治」的運作。倘司法貿然介入，「責任政治」即告解構。再者，司法介入，可能造成「司法政治化」的結果，破壞了「三權分立」；另有學者指出「當司法介入（政治）的惡害大於司法不介入之惡害」，即應知「司法自制」。
可將邱彰案與王金平案作一比較。法院在邱彰案上主張政黨自治符合「不可司法審理性」，足證在我國司法體系內亦有此種思想；但在王金平案，地院及高院兩合議庭的六名法官，卻明白介入已經完成黨內程序的黨紀處分，且不迴避「司法政治化」的後續嚴重效果。再者，邱彰只因「拒絕亮票」而被開鍘；倘若邱彰亦以強制罪或妨害自由罪控告民進黨，難道法院亦應維護邱彰的「私權」？但法院卻完全不介入邱彰與民進黨的爭執，逕以「法院不介入政治」駁回邱彰之訴。相對而言，在王金平案中，高院合議庭公開說：「司法關說的是非對錯是普世價值，不在本案審理範圍」。這句話其實顯示，合議庭明知此案是「政治問題」，否則怎會說「司法關說的是非對錯是普世價值」；且亦知法院不宜介入「政治問題」，否則怎會說「不在本案審理範圍」。凡此，皆可見本案的本質符合「不可司法審理性」。但是，本案的裁定卻逾越了「司法不干涉政治」的界際，造成了「司法政治化」的後果。
本案涉及「司法關說的是非對錯是普世價值」，並涉及政黨自治，亦涉及總統及行政院長的「統治行為」，又涉及立法院長身分的停續，更牽動了憲政正義及國家安危的重大影響；這若不是「司法審查」上所指的「政治問題」，什麼才是政治問題？但是，審理王金平假處分案的六名法官卻儼然凌駕了政黨自治、總統與閣揆的「統治行為」、並挾持了整個立法院，難道這六名法官是太上總統？太上黨主席？未來，法院在審理王金平案的本訴中必須回答這些問題。
將涉及「亮票」的邱彰案視為「政治問題」，卻將涉及憲政利害如此重大的王金平案恍若視作一樁超商打工仔的工時糾紛或一樁離婚官司。這種司法，會不會是恐龍的行跡？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 9, 2013
Summary: The Chiu Chang "ballot flashing" case was ruled a political matter. The stakes in the Wang Jin-pyng case involve constitutional rule. Yet is is being handled as if it were a convenience store working hours dispute or a divorce case. The footprints of "dinosaur judges" are clear for all to see.
Full text below:
The courts issued an injunction reinstating Wang Jin-pyng as a legislator. The KMT has withdrawn its appeal. But it expects the court to try Wang Jin-pyng as soon as possible. It wants "confirmation as to whether there is even such a thing as KMT party membership." It wants to give the people an answer. A party spokesman said, "I hope the focus can be brought back to the current appeal."
The KMT has withdrawn its appeal. This does not mean it has given up on its demands for a non-political inquiry. Ma maintains that "The Speaker of the Legislature exerting undue influence on the criminal justice system is an extremely negative and serious development. Right and wrong must be clarified, as soon as possible." The KMT is not giving up on its demands for a reaffirmation of right vs. wrong.
A third ruling is pending. The appeal may be upheld or rejected. It will have no effect on Wang's current term. But the rulings on appeals at each level will establish important legal precedents on the separation of powers within the constitutional framework. The focus of the debate is whether political party autonomy and the workings of the legislature are subject to judicial review. In other words, the KMT revoked Wang Jin-pyng's party membership. Wang's loss of party membership inevitably led to the loss of his position as Speaker of the Legislature. The question is whether this is consistent with "justiciability."
Justiciability is a judicial review concept drawn from constitutional law. The matter of what is subject to judicial review is important. Under the principle of the separation of powers, certain matters are subject to judicial review, but other matters are not. They are "non-justiciable."
Take the 2002 DPP's revocation of legislator Chiu Chang's status as Legislator without Portfolio. That year an election for Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislature was being held. Chiu Chang voted for DPP candidate Hongqi Chang. This was confirmed afterwards. But he refused to obey legislative caucus orders to "flash his ballot." As a result the DPP expelled him from the party for " breach of legislative caucus procedure." Chiu Chang filed suit. The court dismissed his suit within three days on grounds that "The court must not interfere in political matters. Expulsion from a political party is an internal matter." This ruling shows that the courts held that political party autonomy is non-justiciable. The court ruled that it "must not interfere in political matters." This judicial review mentioned the doctrine of political matters. This is considered a matter of necessary judicial restraint.
Under the tripartite separation of powers, the courts consider certain political matters non-justiciable. There are many reasons for this. The main reason is that the judiciary and the legislature are different. Legislators are usually elected. Judges are usually appointed. The "politics of responsibility" means legislators must bear political responsibility. Judges on the other hand, need not bear political responsibility. Therefore, if the conduct of legislators involves "matters of procedure" the courts should recuse themselves and not become involved. They must respect the politics of responsibility in action. When the courts intervene, political responsibility evaporates. Furthermore, intervention by the courts could result in the politicization of the criminal justice system and the undermining of the separation of powers. Other scholars point out that "When the courts intervene in politics, they do more harm than when they do not." Therefore they must exercise judicial restraint.
The Chiu Chang case can be compared to the Wang Jin-pyng case. In the Chiu Chang case, the court ruled that political party autonomy meant the case was non-justiciable. This attests to the existence of such a concept within our nation's criminal justice system. Yet in the case of Wang Jin-pyng, six judges from the District Court and the High Court, for no reason whatsoever, intervened in a party disciplinary procedure. They refused to recuse themselves despite the danger of politicizing the criminal justice system. Chiu Chang was expelled merely because he refused to flash his ballot. Suppose Chiu Chang had committed crimes or infringed the freedom of the DPP? Should the court have upheld Chiu Chang's "right to privacy?" The court stayed completely out of Chiu Chang's dispute with the DPP. It ruled that "The court must not become involved in politics" and dismissed Chiu Chang's appeal. By contrast, in Wang Jin-pyng's case, the High Court Full Court openly declared that "Undue influence on the justice system is not a universal value with clear right and wrong. It does not fall within the scope of this case." This declaration shows that the full court knew perfectly well that the case was a political matter. Otherwise, how could it say that "Undue influence on the justice system is not a universal value with clear right and wrong," then declare that it "must not intervene in political matters," and that it "does not fall within the scope of this case?" The above clearly shows that the case is non-justiciable. Yet the ruling in this case clearly violates the principle of judicial non-interference in politics and resulted in the politicization of criminal justice.
This case involves the question of whether undue influence on the justice system is a universal value with clear right and wrong. It involves the question of political party autonomy. It involves the President and the Speaker of the Legislature's rules of procedure. It involves the termination or continuation of the Speaker of the Legislature's official status. It involves constitutional rule, criminal justice, and national security. If this is not a"political matter as defined in the court's own judicial review, what is? Yet in the Wang Jin-pyng case, six judges overrode political party autonomy. The overrode the president's and the premier's rules of procedure. They hijacked the entire legislature. Are these six judges overlords whose authority trumps the president's? Are they overlords whose authority trumps the party chairman's? The Wang Jin-pyng case must provide answers to these questions.
The Chiu Chang "ballot flashing" case was ruled a political matter. The stakes in the Wang Jin-pyng case involve constitutional rule. Yet is is being handled as if it were a convenience store working hours dispute or a divorce case. The footprints of "dinosaur judges" are clear for all to see.
六名法官造成的憲政僵局
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.10.09 02:33 am
國民黨撤回對王金平「假處分」的再抗告，同時也希望法院能盡速審理王金平所提「確認國民黨籍是否存在」之本訴，給民眾一個答案。發言人說：希望焦點拉回本訴。
國民黨對「假處分」撤告，但並不表示已放棄對於此一政治是非的探究，馬英九仍說「國會議長涉關說司法，非常負面、嚴重，需盡速釐清是非」，亦即不放棄在本訴中論個黑白。
本訴尚待三審定讞，因此，無論本訴勝敗如何，對王的任期皆已無影響；但是，本訴在各審級的審判中，仍將對「三權分立」的憲政架構作出一個重要的判例，其焦點的議論是：政黨自治（國民黨撤銷王金平黨籍）及國會運作（王金平因保有黨籍即必然造成保有立院院長身分之後果）是否符合「可司法審理性」（justiciability）。
「可司法審理性」是憲法學上關於「司法審查」（judicial review）的一個重要概念，意指在「三權分立」的原則下，有些事務可接受司法審理，但有些事務卻非司法機構所宜審理，亦即所謂「不可司法審理性」（non- justiciability）。
先回顧二○○二年民進黨開除不分區立委邱彰案。是年舉行立法院正副院長選舉，邱彰圈選了民進黨的候選人洪其昌（事後證實），但拒絕依黨團指示「亮票」，於是民進黨以「違反黨團議事運作」開除了邱彰的黨籍。邱彰告到法院，法院在三日內即予駁回，理由是「法院不干涉政治，開除黨籍是政黨內部事務」。此一判決顯示，法院認為政黨自治屬於「不可司法審理性」的範圍。而法院所稱「法院不干涉政治」，亦即「司法審查」中所說的「政治問題原則」（political question doctrine），這被視為「司法自制」（judicial restraint）的必要範圍。
在「三權分立」的架構之下，法院對於某些「政治問題」採取「不可司法審理性」的立場。其理由之一是，政治部門與司法部門最大的差異是在，政治部門往往由選舉產生，且在「責任政治」的原則下必須承負政治責任；但司法部門卻非選舉產生，亦不必負政治責任。因此，政治部門的作為若涉「統治行為」，司法即應「自制」而不「介入」，以尊重「責任政治」的運作。倘司法貿然介入，「責任政治」即告解構。再者，司法介入，可能造成「司法政治化」的結果，破壞了「三權分立」；另有學者指出「當司法介入（政治）的惡害大於司法不介入之惡害」，即應知「司法自制」。
可將邱彰案與王金平案作一比較。法院在邱彰案上主張政黨自治符合「不可司法審理性」，足證在我國司法體系內亦有此種思想；但在王金平案，地院及高院兩合議庭的六名法官，卻明白介入已經完成黨內程序的黨紀處分，且不迴避「司法政治化」的後續嚴重效果。再者，邱彰只因「拒絕亮票」而被開鍘；倘若邱彰亦以強制罪或妨害自由罪控告民進黨，難道法院亦應維護邱彰的「私權」？但法院卻完全不介入邱彰與民進黨的爭執，逕以「法院不介入政治」駁回邱彰之訴。相對而言，在王金平案中，高院合議庭公開說：「司法關說的是非對錯是普世價值，不在本案審理範圍」。這句話其實顯示，合議庭明知此案是「政治問題」，否則怎會說「司法關說的是非對錯是普世價值」；且亦知法院不宜介入「政治問題」，否則怎會說「不在本案審理範圍」。凡此，皆可見本案的本質符合「不可司法審理性」。但是，本案的裁定卻逾越了「司法不干涉政治」的界際，造成了「司法政治化」的後果。
本案涉及「司法關說的是非對錯是普世價值」，並涉及政黨自治，亦涉及總統及行政院長的「統治行為」，又涉及立法院長身分的停續，更牽動了憲政正義及國家安危的重大影響；這若不是「司法審查」上所指的「政治問題」，什麼才是政治問題？但是，審理王金平假處分案的六名法官卻儼然凌駕了政黨自治、總統與閣揆的「統治行為」、並挾持了整個立法院，難道這六名法官是太上總統？太上黨主席？未來，法院在審理王金平案的本訴中必須回答這些問題。
將涉及「亮票」的邱彰案視為「政治問題」，卻將涉及憲政利害如此重大的王金平案恍若視作一樁超商打工仔的工時糾紛或一樁離婚官司。這種司法，會不會是恐龍的行跡？
Monday, October 7, 2013
Cross-Strait Titles: Tear up a Scrap of Paper, Move Ten Thousand Mountains
Cross-Strait Titles: Tear up a Scrap of Paper, Move Ten Thousand Mountains
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 8, 2013
Summary: If Ma and Xi can meet next year, it will mean that the two sides have made a breakthrough. They can be sensible and reasonable regarding official titles, political authority, and political sovereignty. It will also mean that the two sides have already passed the point of no return. Ma and Xi must not forsake this historic opportunity. Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles suggests that Ma and Xi have the wisdom and courage to tear up this scrap of paper and move ten thousand mountains. We will have to wait and see.
Full text below:
The Ma government has made two recommendations regarding the official titles to be used at this year's APEC conference in Bali. Wang Yu-chi and Zhang Zhijun should address each other as " Chairman Zhang" and "Chairman Wang" during the meeting. But Vincent Siew and Xi Jinping should address each other as "Economic Leader Mr. Vincent Siew" and "Economic Leader Mr. Xi Jinping." Unfortunately the latter recommendation was not accepted.
Can an agreement be reached on how Wang and Zhang should address each other? Can Xi and Siew address each other as "economic leader" and "economic representative?" If they can, then the general outlines for the Ma Xi meeting at next year's APEC conference in Beijing will be complete. If this year an agreement can be reached on how Wang and Zhang should address each other, there is no reason why when Ma and Xi meet in Beijing they cannot address each other as "economic leader" inside the APEC conference. Outside the conference they can address each other as the "leader of the Taiwan authorities," and the "leader of Mainland authorities." Where there's a will, there's a way.
We hope this year an agreement can be reached on how Wang and Zhang should address each other. We hope it will pave the way for next year's Ma Xi meeting. If so, the meeting on Bali could be as historically significant as the 2005 Lien Hu meeting. Its impact and achievements could even surpass those of the Lien Hu meeting.
Both sides look forward to a Ma Xi meeting. If next year Ma and Xi can meet, it means the two sides will be able to discuss the cross-Strait political framework. New solutions for cross-strait relations will be possible. That is why the 2014 Ma Xi meeting may transcend the 2005 Lian Hu meeting in importance.
For example, during the Bali meeting Beijing spoke of the "one China framework." This was Xi Jinping's terminology. Taipei spoke of the "1992 consensus." This was Vincent Siew's terminology. Wang and Zhang referred to each other as "Chairman Zhang" and "Chairman Wang." This of course reflected the two sides' "mutual non-denial" or "mutual recognition" of political authority. Currently the two sides refuse to recognize the other sides' political sovereignty and political authority. The first step in loosening the current system's mutual non-recognition, is to address the other sides' officials as "Minister of Economics" and "Minister of Trade." This is not merely a change in official titles. This is a change in the entire system of thinking and political framework.
Of course, the transformation requires a process. But Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles is a first step. For the time being it may be difficult to address each other as "Minister of Defense" or "Minister of Foreign Affairs." But surely it ought to be possible to address each other as "Minister of Education?" If the two sides sign a "Military Trust Agreement" one day, can they still refuse to address each other as "Minister of Defense?" If the two sides come to sign a "Peace Agreement" one day, can they still refuse to address each other as "Premier?" Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles is the first reference to an official framework for cross-Strait political authority. The next step must be to address the official framework for cross-strait political sovereignty.
Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles underscores each side's recognition of the other's political authority. The two sides must not continue to deny each other's political sovereignty. Doing so implies the existence of "two Chinas." Based on "special circumtances under which the two sides have yet to be reunified," the term "one China" is neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China. Rather, it is a "Third Concept" above and beyond either. It is a "generic concept" of "one China." It is this newspaper's proposed "big roof concept of China." It means "The two sides' sovereignty overlap and the two together constitute China." Therefore both the ROC and the PRC are "part of China."
At this point, discussions regarding official titles may lead to discussions regarding the political framework. A formal legal system has yet to be established, for example, through a "Peace Agreement." Under the "big roof concept of China" the two sides' leaders can be referred to as the "leader of the Taiwan authorities" and the "leader of the Mainland authorities." This reflects the "big roof concept of China." Other government agencies and personnel can be addressed according to their respective titles and ranks. In this manner discussions regarding official titles can become discussions regarding political authority. After that, discussions regarding political authority can become discussions regarding political sovereignty. Eventually the "big roof concept of China" can reafirm political sovereignty and political authority for both sides under the "one China framework."
This is what people on both sides should seek from a Ma Xi meeting. Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles has already allowed the two sides to take an important stop toward discussions regarding cross-Strait political authority. Similarly, if next year Ma and Xi can meet, the two sides will be able to discuss cross-Strait political sovereignty. This could be a game changing event that sends shockwaves around the world
An editorial published by this newspaper recently urged moving from discussions regarding official titles, to discussions regarding political authority, to discussions regarding political sovereignty. Fools see ten thousand mountains. Wise men see only a scrap of paper. Wang and Zhang have already proved this. Why can't Ma and Xi also tear up this scrap of paper?
If Ma and Xi can meet next year, it will mean that the two sides have made a breakthrough. They can be sensible and reasonable regarding official titles, political authority, and political sovereignty. It will also mean that the two sides have already passed the point of no return. Ma and Xi must not forsake this historic opportunity. Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles suggests that Ma and Xi have the wisdom and courage to tear up this scrap of paper and move ten thousand mountains. We will have to wait and see.
兩岸互稱官銜：撕一張紙 移萬重山
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.10.08 03:33 am
馬政府對今年峇里島ＡＰＥＣ年會兩岸團員的相互稱謂問題，曾提出兩個建議；其中，王郁琦與張志軍互稱「張主任」、「王主委」之議已獲得實現，但另提蕭萬長與習近平互稱「經濟領袖代表蕭先生」與「經濟領袖習先生」之議惜未成功。
倘若此會能同步實現王張互稱官銜，及習蕭互稱「經濟領袖」與「經濟領袖代表」，即可視為明年北京懷柔ＡＰＥＣ「馬習會」之體制架構的輪廓已然建構完竣。不過，今年既能實現王張互稱官銜，明年就未嘗不能實現馬習在北京ＡＰＥＣ會內互稱「經濟領袖」，在會外互稱「台灣當局領導人」及「大陸當局領導人」，畢竟，皆是一念間事。
因而，今年王張互稱官銜，若能成為替明年「馬習會」鋪平道路的第一塊磚，則這場峇里島之會，或許在歷史地位上將成為二○○五年「連胡會」以來最重大的兩岸關係轉型事件，其成就及影響且將超越連胡會。
兩岸皆期待馬習會能實現。主要的原因是，倘若明年「馬習會」得以成功，即表示兩岸在「體制論述」上已經出現轉型，兩岸關係也找到了新的解決路徑。這是二○一四年的馬習可能超越二○○五年的連胡之處。
例如，此次峇里島之會，北京在「一個中國框架內」（習近平語），台北在「九二共識下」（蕭萬長語），實現了王張互稱「張主任／王主委」，這自然可視為是「治權互不否認」或「治權相互承認」的體現。倘若這就是現行「主權治權皆相互否認」之體制論述出現鬆動的第一塊落磚，則未來互稱「經濟部長」、「商務部長」即有可能。如此，這就不只是「稱謂的變化」，而是整個「體制思維」與「體制論述」的變化。
當然，此一轉型需要一個過程，但王張互稱官銜已邁出了第一步。未來，也許暫難出現互稱「國防部長」或「外交部長」的場面，但絕對有可能出現互稱「教育部長」的場景。何況，若待兩岸走到簽署《軍事互信協定》的一日，難道還能不互稱「國防部長」嗎？再如，若待兩岸走到簽署《和平協議》的一日，難道還能不互稱「行政院長」及「國務院總理」嗎？因而，王張互稱官銜，可以視為重建兩岸「治權體制論述」的開端，下一步則必定要面對兩岸「主權體制論述」的重建問題。
王張互稱官銜，若是顯示「治權相互承認」，兩岸即不宜繼續存有「主權相互否認」的狀態，因為這就會陷入「兩個中國」的難題。於是，在「兩岸尚未統一特殊情況下」的「一個中國」，若不是中華民國，也不是中華人民共和國，即應創造出一個在二者之上的「第三概念」或「上位概念」的「一個中國」，亦即本報倡議的「大屋頂中國」，此即「兩岸主權相互含蘊並共同合成的一個中國」，如此中華民國與中華人民共和國皆為「一部分的中國」。
論述至此，可再回到「稱謂論述」所帶動的「體制論述」。在「大屋頂中國」的正式法制尚未建立之前（如透過《和平協議》），兩岸的稱謂除最高領導人互稱「台灣當局領導人」及「大陸當局領導人」，以體現「大屋頂中國」的思維之外，其餘政府機構及人員皆可互稱官銜。如此，即可由「稱謂體制論述」推動改變「治權體制論述」，再由「治權體制論述」推動改變「主權體制論述」，最後以「大屋頂中國」來重建兩岸主權與治權的「一中架構」。
這應即是兩岸有心人對「馬習會」多所期待的原因。王張互稱官銜，已為兩岸「治權體制論述」的解決邁出了重要的一步；同樣的，明年若能實現馬習會，亦必將對解決兩岸「主權體制論述」的難題，作出震動世界、旋轉乾坤的貢獻。
正如本報日前社論所說：由「稱謂體制論述」到「治權體制論述」，到「主權體制論述」，其間的阻隔均是愚者心中的萬重山，卻是智者心中的一張紙。王張已證明此說，馬習何不也撕去那張紙？
馬習會明年若能實現，將表示兩岸在「稱謂、治權及主權體制論述」上皆應已取得了「合情合理」的轉型與突破，也將表示兩岸已真正跨越了「不可回逆」的門檻；馬習二人絕對不能錯失此一歷史機遇，而此次王張互稱官銜，似也顯示了馬習皆有「撕一張紙／移萬重山」的智慧與勇氣，且拭目以觀。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 8, 2013
Summary: If Ma and Xi can meet next year, it will mean that the two sides have made a breakthrough. They can be sensible and reasonable regarding official titles, political authority, and political sovereignty. It will also mean that the two sides have already passed the point of no return. Ma and Xi must not forsake this historic opportunity. Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles suggests that Ma and Xi have the wisdom and courage to tear up this scrap of paper and move ten thousand mountains. We will have to wait and see.
Full text below:
The Ma government has made two recommendations regarding the official titles to be used at this year's APEC conference in Bali. Wang Yu-chi and Zhang Zhijun should address each other as " Chairman Zhang" and "Chairman Wang" during the meeting. But Vincent Siew and Xi Jinping should address each other as "Economic Leader Mr. Vincent Siew" and "Economic Leader Mr. Xi Jinping." Unfortunately the latter recommendation was not accepted.
Can an agreement be reached on how Wang and Zhang should address each other? Can Xi and Siew address each other as "economic leader" and "economic representative?" If they can, then the general outlines for the Ma Xi meeting at next year's APEC conference in Beijing will be complete. If this year an agreement can be reached on how Wang and Zhang should address each other, there is no reason why when Ma and Xi meet in Beijing they cannot address each other as "economic leader" inside the APEC conference. Outside the conference they can address each other as the "leader of the Taiwan authorities," and the "leader of Mainland authorities." Where there's a will, there's a way.
We hope this year an agreement can be reached on how Wang and Zhang should address each other. We hope it will pave the way for next year's Ma Xi meeting. If so, the meeting on Bali could be as historically significant as the 2005 Lien Hu meeting. Its impact and achievements could even surpass those of the Lien Hu meeting.
Both sides look forward to a Ma Xi meeting. If next year Ma and Xi can meet, it means the two sides will be able to discuss the cross-Strait political framework. New solutions for cross-strait relations will be possible. That is why the 2014 Ma Xi meeting may transcend the 2005 Lian Hu meeting in importance.
For example, during the Bali meeting Beijing spoke of the "one China framework." This was Xi Jinping's terminology. Taipei spoke of the "1992 consensus." This was Vincent Siew's terminology. Wang and Zhang referred to each other as "Chairman Zhang" and "Chairman Wang." This of course reflected the two sides' "mutual non-denial" or "mutual recognition" of political authority. Currently the two sides refuse to recognize the other sides' political sovereignty and political authority. The first step in loosening the current system's mutual non-recognition, is to address the other sides' officials as "Minister of Economics" and "Minister of Trade." This is not merely a change in official titles. This is a change in the entire system of thinking and political framework.
Of course, the transformation requires a process. But Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles is a first step. For the time being it may be difficult to address each other as "Minister of Defense" or "Minister of Foreign Affairs." But surely it ought to be possible to address each other as "Minister of Education?" If the two sides sign a "Military Trust Agreement" one day, can they still refuse to address each other as "Minister of Defense?" If the two sides come to sign a "Peace Agreement" one day, can they still refuse to address each other as "Premier?" Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles is the first reference to an official framework for cross-Strait political authority. The next step must be to address the official framework for cross-strait political sovereignty.
Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles underscores each side's recognition of the other's political authority. The two sides must not continue to deny each other's political sovereignty. Doing so implies the existence of "two Chinas." Based on "special circumtances under which the two sides have yet to be reunified," the term "one China" is neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China. Rather, it is a "Third Concept" above and beyond either. It is a "generic concept" of "one China." It is this newspaper's proposed "big roof concept of China." It means "The two sides' sovereignty overlap and the two together constitute China." Therefore both the ROC and the PRC are "part of China."
At this point, discussions regarding official titles may lead to discussions regarding the political framework. A formal legal system has yet to be established, for example, through a "Peace Agreement." Under the "big roof concept of China" the two sides' leaders can be referred to as the "leader of the Taiwan authorities" and the "leader of the Mainland authorities." This reflects the "big roof concept of China." Other government agencies and personnel can be addressed according to their respective titles and ranks. In this manner discussions regarding official titles can become discussions regarding political authority. After that, discussions regarding political authority can become discussions regarding political sovereignty. Eventually the "big roof concept of China" can reafirm political sovereignty and political authority for both sides under the "one China framework."
This is what people on both sides should seek from a Ma Xi meeting. Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles has already allowed the two sides to take an important stop toward discussions regarding cross-Strait political authority. Similarly, if next year Ma and Xi can meet, the two sides will be able to discuss cross-Strait political sovereignty. This could be a game changing event that sends shockwaves around the world
An editorial published by this newspaper recently urged moving from discussions regarding official titles, to discussions regarding political authority, to discussions regarding political sovereignty. Fools see ten thousand mountains. Wise men see only a scrap of paper. Wang and Zhang have already proved this. Why can't Ma and Xi also tear up this scrap of paper?
If Ma and Xi can meet next year, it will mean that the two sides have made a breakthrough. They can be sensible and reasonable regarding official titles, political authority, and political sovereignty. It will also mean that the two sides have already passed the point of no return. Ma and Xi must not forsake this historic opportunity. Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles suggests that Ma and Xi have the wisdom and courage to tear up this scrap of paper and move ten thousand mountains. We will have to wait and see.
兩岸互稱官銜：撕一張紙 移萬重山
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.10.08 03:33 am
馬政府對今年峇里島ＡＰＥＣ年會兩岸團員的相互稱謂問題，曾提出兩個建議；其中，王郁琦與張志軍互稱「張主任」、「王主委」之議已獲得實現，但另提蕭萬長與習近平互稱「經濟領袖代表蕭先生」與「經濟領袖習先生」之議惜未成功。
倘若此會能同步實現王張互稱官銜，及習蕭互稱「經濟領袖」與「經濟領袖代表」，即可視為明年北京懷柔ＡＰＥＣ「馬習會」之體制架構的輪廓已然建構完竣。不過，今年既能實現王張互稱官銜，明年就未嘗不能實現馬習在北京ＡＰＥＣ會內互稱「經濟領袖」，在會外互稱「台灣當局領導人」及「大陸當局領導人」，畢竟，皆是一念間事。
因而，今年王張互稱官銜，若能成為替明年「馬習會」鋪平道路的第一塊磚，則這場峇里島之會，或許在歷史地位上將成為二○○五年「連胡會」以來最重大的兩岸關係轉型事件，其成就及影響且將超越連胡會。
兩岸皆期待馬習會能實現。主要的原因是，倘若明年「馬習會」得以成功，即表示兩岸在「體制論述」上已經出現轉型，兩岸關係也找到了新的解決路徑。這是二○一四年的馬習可能超越二○○五年的連胡之處。
例如，此次峇里島之會，北京在「一個中國框架內」（習近平語），台北在「九二共識下」（蕭萬長語），實現了王張互稱「張主任／王主委」，這自然可視為是「治權互不否認」或「治權相互承認」的體現。倘若這就是現行「主權治權皆相互否認」之體制論述出現鬆動的第一塊落磚，則未來互稱「經濟部長」、「商務部長」即有可能。如此，這就不只是「稱謂的變化」，而是整個「體制思維」與「體制論述」的變化。
當然，此一轉型需要一個過程，但王張互稱官銜已邁出了第一步。未來，也許暫難出現互稱「國防部長」或「外交部長」的場面，但絕對有可能出現互稱「教育部長」的場景。何況，若待兩岸走到簽署《軍事互信協定》的一日，難道還能不互稱「國防部長」嗎？再如，若待兩岸走到簽署《和平協議》的一日，難道還能不互稱「行政院長」及「國務院總理」嗎？因而，王張互稱官銜，可以視為重建兩岸「治權體制論述」的開端，下一步則必定要面對兩岸「主權體制論述」的重建問題。
王張互稱官銜，若是顯示「治權相互承認」，兩岸即不宜繼續存有「主權相互否認」的狀態，因為這就會陷入「兩個中國」的難題。於是，在「兩岸尚未統一特殊情況下」的「一個中國」，若不是中華民國，也不是中華人民共和國，即應創造出一個在二者之上的「第三概念」或「上位概念」的「一個中國」，亦即本報倡議的「大屋頂中國」，此即「兩岸主權相互含蘊並共同合成的一個中國」，如此中華民國與中華人民共和國皆為「一部分的中國」。
論述至此，可再回到「稱謂論述」所帶動的「體制論述」。在「大屋頂中國」的正式法制尚未建立之前（如透過《和平協議》），兩岸的稱謂除最高領導人互稱「台灣當局領導人」及「大陸當局領導人」，以體現「大屋頂中國」的思維之外，其餘政府機構及人員皆可互稱官銜。如此，即可由「稱謂體制論述」推動改變「治權體制論述」，再由「治權體制論述」推動改變「主權體制論述」，最後以「大屋頂中國」來重建兩岸主權與治權的「一中架構」。
這應即是兩岸有心人對「馬習會」多所期待的原因。王張互稱官銜，已為兩岸「治權體制論述」的解決邁出了重要的一步；同樣的，明年若能實現馬習會，亦必將對解決兩岸「主權體制論述」的難題，作出震動世界、旋轉乾坤的貢獻。
正如本報日前社論所說：由「稱謂體制論述」到「治權體制論述」，到「主權體制論述」，其間的阻隔均是愚者心中的萬重山，卻是智者心中的一張紙。王張已證明此說，馬習何不也撕去那張紙？
馬習會明年若能實現，將表示兩岸在「稱謂、治權及主權體制論述」上皆應已取得了「合情合理」的轉型與突破，也將表示兩岸已真正跨越了「不可回逆」的門檻；馬習二人絕對不能錯失此一歷史機遇，而此次王張互稱官銜，似也顯示了馬習皆有「撕一張紙／移萬重山」的智慧與勇氣，且拭目以觀。
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Political Reconciliation? Yes. Political Deals? No!
Political Reconciliation? Yes. Political Deals? No!
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 7, 2013
Summary: Recall this month's political developments. If all one seeks is an olive branch, it merely proves that the entire affair was politicians making much ado about nothing. The ruling and opposition parties must not forget. People are watching, People are waiting for this drama to end, so that they may finally discern right from wrong.
Full text below:
Speaker of the Legislative Yuan Wang Jin-pyng attempted to exert undue influence on the justice system on behalf of Ker Chien-ming. His action touched off a "September political struggle" which has persisted for a full month. An injunction allowed Wang Jin-pyng to remain in office. Recently rumors have emerged that the KMT intends to drop its appeal against the injunction. It is rumored also that Premier Chiang Yi-hua will meet with Wang Jin-pyng personally. Some are interpreting this as "an opportunity for reconciliation." Reconciliation implies the opportunity to resolve a political impasse. That is something worth looking forward to. But deadlocks must not be resolved by sacrificing right and wrong.
The recent scandal inspired ruling and opposition party efforts to topple Wang and topple Ma. Executive and legislative branch clashes prevent Premier Chiang from addressing the legislature. The situation remains stalemated. Moves for a no confidence vote, recall, and impeachment have also continued. Behind the scenes constitutional wrangling persists. The turmoil has forced the entire country to focus on this issue to the exclusion of all else. The government is on the brink of shutting down. The case is about undue influence on the justice system. But it has since gone off on all sorts of tangents. The original issue has been obscured. Now Huang Shi-ming is being accused of violating confidentiality. The president and the premier are being interrogated. These developments have exceeded anything the public could have imagined.
As a result, President Ma and Premier Chiang have extended an olive branch. From a larger perspective, this is absolutely necessary. President Ma's move to revoke Wang's party membership was fully justified. But party disciplinary measures could not be implemented. Therefore the nation as a whole paid the price. The public considers the harm to the nation's image too great, and the benefits not worth the cost. The public is concerned with economic revitalization. National policy must get back on track. The controversy must be brought back into the system and addressed rationally. If by dropping its appeal the KMT can help this happen, it should do so.
The random gunfire must cease before people can examine the issue calmly and digest it thoroughly. Take the influence peddling case. Ruling and opposition party legislative leaders have yet to make a quid pro quo deal. But the wire tapping transcript makes charges of undue influence on the justice system difficult to deny. The accused have so far feigned innocence. They have yet to offer any convincing explanation of their actions.
Worse, a number of Blue and Green camp politicians have attempted to shirk responsibility, by arguing that undue influence by legislators on the justice system is "standard operating procedure," and a "constituent service." This argument redefines political wrangling as a mainstream social value. If the public buys into it, democracy and the rule of law will be set back decades. Judicial independence will become empty talk. The justice system will become the exclusive domain of politicians, to do with as they please.
Another issue that urgently requires clarification is Special Investigation Unit wire tapping of legislators. The Special Investigation Unit argued that it "got the number wrong," and "did not listen to anything." But whether it listened in intentionally or unintentionally is irrelevant. Its actions made all parties in the legislature uneasy. It led to suspicions of Special Investigation Unit abuse of authority. This cannot be ignored. In a democracy the legislature is supposed to be supreme. Legislative supremacy is as important as judicial independence. Only a legislature free from fear can implement democracy. Yet the Special Investigation Unit inexplicably wire tapped the legislature switchboard. This not only undermined faith in the justice system. It reminded Taiwan of the dark days of the White Terror.
The ruling KMT and Wang Jin-pyng may reconcile. But clarifying right and wrong regarding undue influence upon the justice system remains essential. The KMT must correct the "first convict, then try" aspect of the party disciplinary process. It must also amend the law, ensuring that undue influence upon the justice system is clearly illegal. This will ensure that any power holder or elected respresentative who exerts undue influence upon the justice system pays the price.
Undue influence upon the justice system by legislators is currently punishable only by legislative disciplinary measures. The Legislative Disciplinary Committee must not simply go through the motions. It must determine whether Wang and Ker exerted undue influence upon the justice system. It must determine how they are punished. It must answer to the public .
After months of wrangling, Wang Jin-pyng has been offered an olive branch by the KMT. Perhaps he still feels some residual resentment. But he should examine his own conduct. Does he really believe he did nothing wrong? Does he really believe he did not cross the line? Wang has retained his position as Speaker of the Legislative Yuan. But Wang Jin-pyng must still face the music for undue influence upon the justice system. He must still offer a clear explanation and apologize .
The Ministry of Justice is investigating the wire tapping case. The investigation is in progress. We do not know what the outcome will be. But we must not fail see the forest for the trees. This case revealed that wire tapping is practiced indiscriminately. The revelation is staggering. Technical negligence must be addressed. Legal steps should be taken against the abuse of authority. Wire tapping regulations must be more complete. Only this can protect the people's rights.
Recall this month's political developments. If all one seeks is an olive branch, it merely proves that the entire affair was politicians making much ado about nothing. The ruling and opposition parties must not forget. People are watching, People are waiting for this drama to end, so that they may finally discern right from wrong.
政治可以和解，是非不容妥協
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.10.07 03:41 am
立法院長王金平為民進黨總召柯建銘的司法關說案，引發「九月政爭」之紛擾至今正好滿一個月。連日來，傳出國民黨放棄對王金平黨籍假處分提出抗告，閣揆江宜樺也與王金平會面溝通，輿論以「馬王和解契機」解讀。和解，意味政治僵局有化解的機會，值得積極看待；但要提醒的是，解決僵局的同時，不能以犧牲是非為代價。
此次事件在朝野引發倒王、倒馬的鬥爭，在行政與立法部門間引發讓江揆無法進行施政報告的杯葛，政局癱瘓至今。除此之外，倒閣、罷免、彈劾等種種戰鬥未休，憲政暗潮蠢動。受這樣的風暴影響，舉國上下似乎不再關注其他議題，政務瀕於停擺。此案始於司法關說卻不斷枝節橫生，乃至變形走調，演成黃世銘淪為洩密案被告而總統和江揆因此接受偵訊，均已遠超乎國人想像。
在這種情況下，馬總統和江揆相繼遞出和解的橄欖枝，從大局看，其實是必要的。理由是，無論馬總統鍘王的訴求多麼正當，但因一黨的紀律處分無法貫徹落實，而致要將整個國政賠上，從觀瞻或得失而言，都不符比例原則，也難獲民意認同。尤其，值此民眾殷盼「拚經濟」之際，「停止抗告」若能擺脫國政與之俱沉的泥淖，應該予以肯定，也有助於使爭議回歸制度面的理性討論。
簡單地說，須等四射的亂砲煙硝沉寂之後，民眾才有機會比較冷靜地審視事件本質，並深入咀嚼。以關說案而言，朝野國會龍頭涉及的關說事件雖未查獲「對價關係」，但從監聽譯文看來，「司法關說」的事實很難一舉否認，當事人迄今也一味避重就輕，未對事件疑點作出令人信服的說明。
尤有甚者，日來若干藍綠政治人物為了卸責，不斷散布「司法關說」是「國會議員正常選民服務」的聲音。倘若這樣的說法，竟因政爭的升沉而成為社會的主流價值，那麼，台灣的民主法治不啻將倒退數十年。如此一來，不僅「司法獨立」變成空談，司法更將淪為政治人物予取予求之禁臠。
另一個亟待釐清的是非，是特偵組監聽國會總機事件。儘管特偵組辯稱是「搞錯電話」，且「未監聽到任何內容」；但無論有心或無意，此舉造成立院各黨派的不安，而產生特偵組「濫權」的疑慮，均不容忽視。民主國家「國會至上」的原則，其重要性和「司法獨立」並駕齊驅；唯有免於恐懼的國會，才能實踐民主。特偵組莫名監聽國會總機，不唯自損司法公信，也讓台灣好不容易才清洗的「白色恐怖」陰影再起，令人扼腕！
亦即，無論執政黨與王金平的「和解」要如何開展，釐清「司法關說」的是非，都有其絕對的必要性。國民黨除應設法補正黨紀處分程序中「未審先判」的缺失外，更應積極推動「司法關說入罪」的修法，讓介入司法關說的權勢者或民意代表都必須付出代價。
另外，既然「立委關說司法」目前僅能由「國會自律」處理，立法院紀律委員會也不應虛晃一招，應對王、柯是否實質涉及司法關說，以及應如何懲處，給社會大眾交代。
經過連月角力，王金平面對國民黨拋來的橄欖枝，或許仍有未盡的意氣，但自思在此事件中的作為，難道真的不曾有一刻「超越了司法紅線」？若果真如此，雖然得以保住立法院長權位，王金平仍有義務對「司法關說」，做更清楚的交代甚至道歉。
至於法務部針對監聽案的調查工作，雖仍在進行中，但無論調查結果為何，都不應該「見樹不見林」。此案揭露監聽執行之浮濫、便宜行事，令人瞠目結舌；對此，除了技術疏失的改進，法務更應針對職權行使不當所造成的危害積極補強。唯有讓監聽的法規和執行更加完備，人民的權利才能得到充分保障。
回顧這一個月的政潮，若只求止於遞出橄欖枝，那只證明是一場政客的庸人自擾。然而，朝野都別忘了台下的觀眾，人們還在等著對這場大戲的是非作出評價。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 7, 2013
Summary: Recall this month's political developments. If all one seeks is an olive branch, it merely proves that the entire affair was politicians making much ado about nothing. The ruling and opposition parties must not forget. People are watching, People are waiting for this drama to end, so that they may finally discern right from wrong.
Full text below:
Speaker of the Legislative Yuan Wang Jin-pyng attempted to exert undue influence on the justice system on behalf of Ker Chien-ming. His action touched off a "September political struggle" which has persisted for a full month. An injunction allowed Wang Jin-pyng to remain in office. Recently rumors have emerged that the KMT intends to drop its appeal against the injunction. It is rumored also that Premier Chiang Yi-hua will meet with Wang Jin-pyng personally. Some are interpreting this as "an opportunity for reconciliation." Reconciliation implies the opportunity to resolve a political impasse. That is something worth looking forward to. But deadlocks must not be resolved by sacrificing right and wrong.
The recent scandal inspired ruling and opposition party efforts to topple Wang and topple Ma. Executive and legislative branch clashes prevent Premier Chiang from addressing the legislature. The situation remains stalemated. Moves for a no confidence vote, recall, and impeachment have also continued. Behind the scenes constitutional wrangling persists. The turmoil has forced the entire country to focus on this issue to the exclusion of all else. The government is on the brink of shutting down. The case is about undue influence on the justice system. But it has since gone off on all sorts of tangents. The original issue has been obscured. Now Huang Shi-ming is being accused of violating confidentiality. The president and the premier are being interrogated. These developments have exceeded anything the public could have imagined.
As a result, President Ma and Premier Chiang have extended an olive branch. From a larger perspective, this is absolutely necessary. President Ma's move to revoke Wang's party membership was fully justified. But party disciplinary measures could not be implemented. Therefore the nation as a whole paid the price. The public considers the harm to the nation's image too great, and the benefits not worth the cost. The public is concerned with economic revitalization. National policy must get back on track. The controversy must be brought back into the system and addressed rationally. If by dropping its appeal the KMT can help this happen, it should do so.
The random gunfire must cease before people can examine the issue calmly and digest it thoroughly. Take the influence peddling case. Ruling and opposition party legislative leaders have yet to make a quid pro quo deal. But the wire tapping transcript makes charges of undue influence on the justice system difficult to deny. The accused have so far feigned innocence. They have yet to offer any convincing explanation of their actions.
Worse, a number of Blue and Green camp politicians have attempted to shirk responsibility, by arguing that undue influence by legislators on the justice system is "standard operating procedure," and a "constituent service." This argument redefines political wrangling as a mainstream social value. If the public buys into it, democracy and the rule of law will be set back decades. Judicial independence will become empty talk. The justice system will become the exclusive domain of politicians, to do with as they please.
Another issue that urgently requires clarification is Special Investigation Unit wire tapping of legislators. The Special Investigation Unit argued that it "got the number wrong," and "did not listen to anything." But whether it listened in intentionally or unintentionally is irrelevant. Its actions made all parties in the legislature uneasy. It led to suspicions of Special Investigation Unit abuse of authority. This cannot be ignored. In a democracy the legislature is supposed to be supreme. Legislative supremacy is as important as judicial independence. Only a legislature free from fear can implement democracy. Yet the Special Investigation Unit inexplicably wire tapped the legislature switchboard. This not only undermined faith in the justice system. It reminded Taiwan of the dark days of the White Terror.
The ruling KMT and Wang Jin-pyng may reconcile. But clarifying right and wrong regarding undue influence upon the justice system remains essential. The KMT must correct the "first convict, then try" aspect of the party disciplinary process. It must also amend the law, ensuring that undue influence upon the justice system is clearly illegal. This will ensure that any power holder or elected respresentative who exerts undue influence upon the justice system pays the price.
Undue influence upon the justice system by legislators is currently punishable only by legislative disciplinary measures. The Legislative Disciplinary Committee must not simply go through the motions. It must determine whether Wang and Ker exerted undue influence upon the justice system. It must determine how they are punished. It must answer to the public .
After months of wrangling, Wang Jin-pyng has been offered an olive branch by the KMT. Perhaps he still feels some residual resentment. But he should examine his own conduct. Does he really believe he did nothing wrong? Does he really believe he did not cross the line? Wang has retained his position as Speaker of the Legislative Yuan. But Wang Jin-pyng must still face the music for undue influence upon the justice system. He must still offer a clear explanation and apologize .
The Ministry of Justice is investigating the wire tapping case. The investigation is in progress. We do not know what the outcome will be. But we must not fail see the forest for the trees. This case revealed that wire tapping is practiced indiscriminately. The revelation is staggering. Technical negligence must be addressed. Legal steps should be taken against the abuse of authority. Wire tapping regulations must be more complete. Only this can protect the people's rights.
Recall this month's political developments. If all one seeks is an olive branch, it merely proves that the entire affair was politicians making much ado about nothing. The ruling and opposition parties must not forget. People are watching, People are waiting for this drama to end, so that they may finally discern right from wrong.
政治可以和解，是非不容妥協
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.10.07 03:41 am
立法院長王金平為民進黨總召柯建銘的司法關說案，引發「九月政爭」之紛擾至今正好滿一個月。連日來，傳出國民黨放棄對王金平黨籍假處分提出抗告，閣揆江宜樺也與王金平會面溝通，輿論以「馬王和解契機」解讀。和解，意味政治僵局有化解的機會，值得積極看待；但要提醒的是，解決僵局的同時，不能以犧牲是非為代價。
此次事件在朝野引發倒王、倒馬的鬥爭，在行政與立法部門間引發讓江揆無法進行施政報告的杯葛，政局癱瘓至今。除此之外，倒閣、罷免、彈劾等種種戰鬥未休，憲政暗潮蠢動。受這樣的風暴影響，舉國上下似乎不再關注其他議題，政務瀕於停擺。此案始於司法關說卻不斷枝節橫生，乃至變形走調，演成黃世銘淪為洩密案被告而總統和江揆因此接受偵訊，均已遠超乎國人想像。
在這種情況下，馬總統和江揆相繼遞出和解的橄欖枝，從大局看，其實是必要的。理由是，無論馬總統鍘王的訴求多麼正當，但因一黨的紀律處分無法貫徹落實，而致要將整個國政賠上，從觀瞻或得失而言，都不符比例原則，也難獲民意認同。尤其，值此民眾殷盼「拚經濟」之際，「停止抗告」若能擺脫國政與之俱沉的泥淖，應該予以肯定，也有助於使爭議回歸制度面的理性討論。
簡單地說，須等四射的亂砲煙硝沉寂之後，民眾才有機會比較冷靜地審視事件本質，並深入咀嚼。以關說案而言，朝野國會龍頭涉及的關說事件雖未查獲「對價關係」，但從監聽譯文看來，「司法關說」的事實很難一舉否認，當事人迄今也一味避重就輕，未對事件疑點作出令人信服的說明。
尤有甚者，日來若干藍綠政治人物為了卸責，不斷散布「司法關說」是「國會議員正常選民服務」的聲音。倘若這樣的說法，竟因政爭的升沉而成為社會的主流價值，那麼，台灣的民主法治不啻將倒退數十年。如此一來，不僅「司法獨立」變成空談，司法更將淪為政治人物予取予求之禁臠。
另一個亟待釐清的是非，是特偵組監聽國會總機事件。儘管特偵組辯稱是「搞錯電話」，且「未監聽到任何內容」；但無論有心或無意，此舉造成立院各黨派的不安，而產生特偵組「濫權」的疑慮，均不容忽視。民主國家「國會至上」的原則，其重要性和「司法獨立」並駕齊驅；唯有免於恐懼的國會，才能實踐民主。特偵組莫名監聽國會總機，不唯自損司法公信，也讓台灣好不容易才清洗的「白色恐怖」陰影再起，令人扼腕！
亦即，無論執政黨與王金平的「和解」要如何開展，釐清「司法關說」的是非，都有其絕對的必要性。國民黨除應設法補正黨紀處分程序中「未審先判」的缺失外，更應積極推動「司法關說入罪」的修法，讓介入司法關說的權勢者或民意代表都必須付出代價。
另外，既然「立委關說司法」目前僅能由「國會自律」處理，立法院紀律委員會也不應虛晃一招，應對王、柯是否實質涉及司法關說，以及應如何懲處，給社會大眾交代。
經過連月角力，王金平面對國民黨拋來的橄欖枝，或許仍有未盡的意氣，但自思在此事件中的作為，難道真的不曾有一刻「超越了司法紅線」？若果真如此，雖然得以保住立法院長權位，王金平仍有義務對「司法關說」，做更清楚的交代甚至道歉。
至於法務部針對監聽案的調查工作，雖仍在進行中，但無論調查結果為何，都不應該「見樹不見林」。此案揭露監聽執行之浮濫、便宜行事，令人瞠目結舌；對此，除了技術疏失的改進，法務更應針對職權行使不當所造成的危害積極補強。唯有讓監聽的法規和執行更加完備，人民的權利才能得到充分保障。
回顧這一個月的政潮，若只求止於遞出橄欖枝，那只證明是一場政客的庸人自擾。然而，朝野都別忘了台下的觀眾，人們還在等著對這場大戲的是非作出評價。
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Reminders for Ma and Wang in a Lose/Lose Battle
Reminders for Ma and Wang in a Lose/Lose Battle
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 4, 2013
Summary: The future may bring inconceivable change. But for the time being, neither Wang nor Ma will emerge a winner. President Ma's plight requires no comment. He was dealt a pat hand, yet this is how he played it. What more can one say? Conversely, Speaker of the Legislature Wang has not, contrary to popular opinion, "scored two consecutive victories." His internal injuries are no less serious than Ma's.
Full text below:
A "political struggle" has raged for most of this month. The storm has yet to subside. But cool-headed observation tells us two things. One. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng has temporarily saved his rice bowl. Two. He has temporarily abandoned the KMT and become a Speaker of the Legislature with no party affiliation. The DPP launched a combined public opinion battle and legal battle. But these were merely "spit battles." They involved empty rhetoric. Once the boat has glided by, the water will leave no trace of its passing. On the other hand, a Speaker of the Legislature who has no party affiliation whatsoever, amounts to a real change in the situation. It will definitely affect future politics.
The future may bring inconceivable change. But for the time being, neither Wang nor Ma will emerge a winner. President Ma's plight requires no comment. He was dealt a pat hand, yet this is how he played it. What more can one say? Conversely, Speaker of the Legislature Wang has not, contrary to popular opinion, "scored two consecutive victories." His internal injuries are no less serious than Ma's. Their future relationship will be troubled. How will the two perceive their own plight? How will the two cope with future difficulties? That is the real key. We would like to offer Ma and Wang the following suggestions and reminders.
First, we would like to offer Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng the following reminder.
One. End the chaos in the legislature, as soon as possible. Allow the legislature to return to normal. According to our latest poll, over 70% of the public is unhappy with the efficiency and performance of current legislators. Over 60% think interparty consultations must be restarted and expanded. Over 40% of the public supports the dissolution of the legislature. This is abundantly clear. The public wants a Legislative Yuan that acts as a gatekeeper for legislation. It does not want a legislature that leaves the government paralyzed. True, the Speaker of the Legislature now has no partisan political fetters. He need no longer pay attention to what Chairman Ma likes or dislikes. He has more maneuvering room than in the past. But that does not mean he can do whatever he pleases, without constraints. On the contrary, polls talk. Any future chaos and gridlock in the legislature will be blamed on him, the Speaker of the Legislature.
Two. The cloud of suspicion surrounding influence peddling among the privileged has dissipated. The KMT appeal was rejected. Put bluntly, the wire tapping may have be questionable. Wang's appeal may have been successful. But that is hardly the same as saying that the public approved of Wang's conduct or considered it legitimate. Wang Jin-pyng and the DPP's Ker Chien-ming cannot excuse their behavior with the public. If they fail to exercise restraint in the future, and persist in making back room deals, they will provoke a storm of controversy. In particular, they will not be allowed to use the Budget Review process as a means of influence peddling.
Three. No matter how reluctant Wang may be, he must mend relations with the president and the executive branch, as soon as possible. He must coordinate with Ma, especially over legislation. If Wang gains the upper hand, he may not use it to worsen the current political impasse in the Legislative Yuan, preventing President Ma and the ruling party from taking action. If he does, public opinion will turn against him. Public sympathy and support for him will evaporate. Major bills, particulary TISA must be allowed to pass .
We would also remind President Ma.
One. You must understand why the situation degenerated as it did. You hurt yourself more than you hurt your opponent. You fought the Romans at Heraclea and scored a Pyrrhic Victory. The results clearly illustrate this. Do not assume that as long as your ends are just, you need not limit yourself to appropriate and reasonable means. From beginning to end, the public rejected your arguments. It could not accept your crude handling of the matter.
Two. You emphasize respect for the law. Therefore you cannot cannot focus exclusively on influence peddling among the privileged, and disregard entirely the Special Investigation Unit's indiscriminate wire tapping. President Ma insists on human rights and the rule of law. This has been his trademark ever since he became involved in politics. But one cannot demand the highest ethical standards for influence peddling among the privileged, while ignoring illegal wire tapping by law enforcement. That merely subjects one to even greater skepticism.
Three. No matter how difficult, the ruling party in the legislature must regroup as soon as possible. Chen Shui-bian was plagued by major scandals. Yet his Praetorian Guard within the Legislative Yuan always rushed to his defense, and supported him to the bitter end. President Ma is not implicated in any scandal. Yet he appears to have committed some unforgivable sin. He battles alone, surrounded by his enemies. The ruling party commands an absolute majority in the Legislative Yuan. Yet it has no stomach for a fight. President Ma, does this not alarm you? Your comrades now have their guns pointed at each other. They are engaged in internecine warfare. President Ma finds himself trapped among party members harboring deep grievances. He finds himself constantly beseiged by outsiders who question his "inner circle." He may as well emerge from his office, and condescend to communicate directly with KMT legislators.
Four. If you believe you are right, then take your case directly to the people. Use language people understand. Use every means at hand to explain your convictions and philosophy. In the United States, when the president clashes with Congress, he invariably appeals directly to the people, and frequently snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.10.04
社論－幾點提醒 給雙輸的馬王
本報訊
喧擾大半月的所謂「政爭」，走到此一階段固然依舊沸沸揚揚，但冷靜觀察，大概已可以確定兩項結論，其一是王金平暫時保住了國會議長的職位，其二是他暫時放棄了國民黨籍，成為名符其實的無黨籍立法院長。至於民進黨掀起的輿論戰與法律戰，終究只是「口水戰」，很快會船過水無痕。但一個「實質無黨籍立法院長」的變局，絕對將影響接下來的政局。
姑不論未來將會有那些不堪的變局，僅就目前所發展的結果論，我們以為不論是王抑或馬，都不會是這場爭議的贏家，馬總統根本不必說了，一幅上好的牌被他打成這般局面，夫復何言？王院長的處境也絕不是如外界所評論的是「連贏兩局」，他所受的內傷，絕對不比馬低。今後這段時日甭說他們兩人的關係很難再修復，他們兩人怎麼各自認知自己的處境，如何應付今後的艱困局面，恐怕才是更大的關鍵。因而針對馬王兩人，我們在此想做些中肯的建言與提醒。
首先，我們想先對王金平院長，提出以下的提醒：
一、務必要盡快遏止立院的失序狀態，讓國會運作回到立法的正業上。根據本報最新民調，有7成以上不滿當前國會的議事效率及立委的表現，有6成認為朝野協商制度必須改弦更張，甚至有4成民眾支持解散國會。這已經很清楚說明，人民要的是一個能夠為法案善加把關的立法院，不是一個讓政府全面失靈的立法院。沒有錯，王金平院長如今已沒有政黨羈絆，不必再看馬「主席」的臉色，政治空間也比過去更加遊刃有餘，但這絕不代表他未來可以從心所欲，無拘無束，正好相反，民調會說話，未來立院的失序與僵局，責任都將落於議長身上。
二、特權關說的疑雲，從來沒有因為抗告成功，就可以下結論說已獲得平反。講得再直白一點，就算監聽程序確實存有爭議，就算司法抗告獲得成功，都不等於宣告關說行為已獲得社會認可，甚至擁有價值上的正當性，王金平與民進黨的柯建銘一樣，都缺少給外界一個說法。未來若是不能在密室政治行為的操作上有所節制與收歛，依舊還是會陷入爭議的，尤其藉預算審查權關說，更是不能容許。
三、不論有多大的不情願，還是得盡快修補與總統及行政部門的關係，特別是在立法做為的配合上。如果在局面占上風之際，竟然進一步在立院深化目前的政治僵局，故意讓馬總統及執政黨無所做為，那麼主流輿論原本對王金平的同情與支持，將會很快的轉向。重大法案，尤其服貿協議要能順利通過。
我們也想對馬總統做出幾點提醒：
一、務必要認清事態何以竟會發展成這樣的結果？宛如打了一套自傷大於他傷的七傷拳，更宛如打了一場「殺敵八千，自損一萬」的戰役，這個結果清楚說明的一點是：千萬不要以為只要目標正確，就可以不必兼顧手段的合宜與情理。主流民意從頭到尾都沒有否定馬總統的價值訴求，卻對馬總統處理手法的粗糙、突兀不能認同。
二、既然強調守法，就不能只關注特權關說的實質正義，而完全不顧及特偵組濫行監聽的程序正義。馬總統對人權與法治的堅持，一直是他從政以來最鮮明的政治風格，但如果只對特權關說保持最高道德標準的潔癖，卻對非法監聽刻意忽視，所可能受到的質疑恐怕更大。
三、不論困難有多大，都要盡快重整執政黨在立法院的隊伍了。昔日陳水扁哪怕是再大的弊案纏身，在立院都有一支鐵衛隊為他辯解，力挺到底。如今的馬總統沒惹上任何一樁弊案，卻彷彿犯了天大地大的錯，陷入孤軍奮戰，四面楚歌的處境，一個在立院占過半數執政黨團，竟然被打得毫無戰力，馬總統難道還不願警醒嗎？目前黨內已呈現炮口向內，同志相殘的態勢，馬總統與其坐困愁城，不斷承受外界所謂小圈圈的質疑，不如走出辦公室，放下身段與黨籍立委直接溝通吧。
四、如果認為自己是對的，就多與人民直接溝通吧！特別要是用人民熟悉的語言，利用各種管道闡述自己的堅持與理念。要知道，美國歷來所有與國會衝突的總統，都是在直接向人民訴求後獲得反敗為勝。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 4, 2013
Summary: The future may bring inconceivable change. But for the time being, neither Wang nor Ma will emerge a winner. President Ma's plight requires no comment. He was dealt a pat hand, yet this is how he played it. What more can one say? Conversely, Speaker of the Legislature Wang has not, contrary to popular opinion, "scored two consecutive victories." His internal injuries are no less serious than Ma's.
Full text below:
A "political struggle" has raged for most of this month. The storm has yet to subside. But cool-headed observation tells us two things. One. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng has temporarily saved his rice bowl. Two. He has temporarily abandoned the KMT and become a Speaker of the Legislature with no party affiliation. The DPP launched a combined public opinion battle and legal battle. But these were merely "spit battles." They involved empty rhetoric. Once the boat has glided by, the water will leave no trace of its passing. On the other hand, a Speaker of the Legislature who has no party affiliation whatsoever, amounts to a real change in the situation. It will definitely affect future politics.
The future may bring inconceivable change. But for the time being, neither Wang nor Ma will emerge a winner. President Ma's plight requires no comment. He was dealt a pat hand, yet this is how he played it. What more can one say? Conversely, Speaker of the Legislature Wang has not, contrary to popular opinion, "scored two consecutive victories." His internal injuries are no less serious than Ma's. Their future relationship will be troubled. How will the two perceive their own plight? How will the two cope with future difficulties? That is the real key. We would like to offer Ma and Wang the following suggestions and reminders.
First, we would like to offer Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng the following reminder.
One. End the chaos in the legislature, as soon as possible. Allow the legislature to return to normal. According to our latest poll, over 70% of the public is unhappy with the efficiency and performance of current legislators. Over 60% think interparty consultations must be restarted and expanded. Over 40% of the public supports the dissolution of the legislature. This is abundantly clear. The public wants a Legislative Yuan that acts as a gatekeeper for legislation. It does not want a legislature that leaves the government paralyzed. True, the Speaker of the Legislature now has no partisan political fetters. He need no longer pay attention to what Chairman Ma likes or dislikes. He has more maneuvering room than in the past. But that does not mean he can do whatever he pleases, without constraints. On the contrary, polls talk. Any future chaos and gridlock in the legislature will be blamed on him, the Speaker of the Legislature.
Two. The cloud of suspicion surrounding influence peddling among the privileged has dissipated. The KMT appeal was rejected. Put bluntly, the wire tapping may have be questionable. Wang's appeal may have been successful. But that is hardly the same as saying that the public approved of Wang's conduct or considered it legitimate. Wang Jin-pyng and the DPP's Ker Chien-ming cannot excuse their behavior with the public. If they fail to exercise restraint in the future, and persist in making back room deals, they will provoke a storm of controversy. In particular, they will not be allowed to use the Budget Review process as a means of influence peddling.
Three. No matter how reluctant Wang may be, he must mend relations with the president and the executive branch, as soon as possible. He must coordinate with Ma, especially over legislation. If Wang gains the upper hand, he may not use it to worsen the current political impasse in the Legislative Yuan, preventing President Ma and the ruling party from taking action. If he does, public opinion will turn against him. Public sympathy and support for him will evaporate. Major bills, particulary TISA must be allowed to pass .
We would also remind President Ma.
One. You must understand why the situation degenerated as it did. You hurt yourself more than you hurt your opponent. You fought the Romans at Heraclea and scored a Pyrrhic Victory. The results clearly illustrate this. Do not assume that as long as your ends are just, you need not limit yourself to appropriate and reasonable means. From beginning to end, the public rejected your arguments. It could not accept your crude handling of the matter.
Two. You emphasize respect for the law. Therefore you cannot cannot focus exclusively on influence peddling among the privileged, and disregard entirely the Special Investigation Unit's indiscriminate wire tapping. President Ma insists on human rights and the rule of law. This has been his trademark ever since he became involved in politics. But one cannot demand the highest ethical standards for influence peddling among the privileged, while ignoring illegal wire tapping by law enforcement. That merely subjects one to even greater skepticism.
Three. No matter how difficult, the ruling party in the legislature must regroup as soon as possible. Chen Shui-bian was plagued by major scandals. Yet his Praetorian Guard within the Legislative Yuan always rushed to his defense, and supported him to the bitter end. President Ma is not implicated in any scandal. Yet he appears to have committed some unforgivable sin. He battles alone, surrounded by his enemies. The ruling party commands an absolute majority in the Legislative Yuan. Yet it has no stomach for a fight. President Ma, does this not alarm you? Your comrades now have their guns pointed at each other. They are engaged in internecine warfare. President Ma finds himself trapped among party members harboring deep grievances. He finds himself constantly beseiged by outsiders who question his "inner circle." He may as well emerge from his office, and condescend to communicate directly with KMT legislators.
Four. If you believe you are right, then take your case directly to the people. Use language people understand. Use every means at hand to explain your convictions and philosophy. In the United States, when the president clashes with Congress, he invariably appeals directly to the people, and frequently snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.10.04
社論－幾點提醒 給雙輸的馬王
本報訊
喧擾大半月的所謂「政爭」，走到此一階段固然依舊沸沸揚揚，但冷靜觀察，大概已可以確定兩項結論，其一是王金平暫時保住了國會議長的職位，其二是他暫時放棄了國民黨籍，成為名符其實的無黨籍立法院長。至於民進黨掀起的輿論戰與法律戰，終究只是「口水戰」，很快會船過水無痕。但一個「實質無黨籍立法院長」的變局，絕對將影響接下來的政局。
姑不論未來將會有那些不堪的變局，僅就目前所發展的結果論，我們以為不論是王抑或馬，都不會是這場爭議的贏家，馬總統根本不必說了，一幅上好的牌被他打成這般局面，夫復何言？王院長的處境也絕不是如外界所評論的是「連贏兩局」，他所受的內傷，絕對不比馬低。今後這段時日甭說他們兩人的關係很難再修復，他們兩人怎麼各自認知自己的處境，如何應付今後的艱困局面，恐怕才是更大的關鍵。因而針對馬王兩人，我們在此想做些中肯的建言與提醒。
首先，我們想先對王金平院長，提出以下的提醒：
一、務必要盡快遏止立院的失序狀態，讓國會運作回到立法的正業上。根據本報最新民調，有7成以上不滿當前國會的議事效率及立委的表現，有6成認為朝野協商制度必須改弦更張，甚至有4成民眾支持解散國會。這已經很清楚說明，人民要的是一個能夠為法案善加把關的立法院，不是一個讓政府全面失靈的立法院。沒有錯，王金平院長如今已沒有政黨羈絆，不必再看馬「主席」的臉色，政治空間也比過去更加遊刃有餘，但這絕不代表他未來可以從心所欲，無拘無束，正好相反，民調會說話，未來立院的失序與僵局，責任都將落於議長身上。
二、特權關說的疑雲，從來沒有因為抗告成功，就可以下結論說已獲得平反。講得再直白一點，就算監聽程序確實存有爭議，就算司法抗告獲得成功，都不等於宣告關說行為已獲得社會認可，甚至擁有價值上的正當性，王金平與民進黨的柯建銘一樣，都缺少給外界一個說法。未來若是不能在密室政治行為的操作上有所節制與收歛，依舊還是會陷入爭議的，尤其藉預算審查權關說，更是不能容許。
三、不論有多大的不情願，還是得盡快修補與總統及行政部門的關係，特別是在立法做為的配合上。如果在局面占上風之際，竟然進一步在立院深化目前的政治僵局，故意讓馬總統及執政黨無所做為，那麼主流輿論原本對王金平的同情與支持，將會很快的轉向。重大法案，尤其服貿協議要能順利通過。
我們也想對馬總統做出幾點提醒：
一、務必要認清事態何以竟會發展成這樣的結果？宛如打了一套自傷大於他傷的七傷拳，更宛如打了一場「殺敵八千，自損一萬」的戰役，這個結果清楚說明的一點是：千萬不要以為只要目標正確，就可以不必兼顧手段的合宜與情理。主流民意從頭到尾都沒有否定馬總統的價值訴求，卻對馬總統處理手法的粗糙、突兀不能認同。
二、既然強調守法，就不能只關注特權關說的實質正義，而完全不顧及特偵組濫行監聽的程序正義。馬總統對人權與法治的堅持，一直是他從政以來最鮮明的政治風格，但如果只對特權關說保持最高道德標準的潔癖，卻對非法監聽刻意忽視，所可能受到的質疑恐怕更大。
三、不論困難有多大，都要盡快重整執政黨在立法院的隊伍了。昔日陳水扁哪怕是再大的弊案纏身，在立院都有一支鐵衛隊為他辯解，力挺到底。如今的馬總統沒惹上任何一樁弊案，卻彷彿犯了天大地大的錯，陷入孤軍奮戰，四面楚歌的處境，一個在立院占過半數執政黨團，竟然被打得毫無戰力，馬總統難道還不願警醒嗎？目前黨內已呈現炮口向內，同志相殘的態勢，馬總統與其坐困愁城，不斷承受外界所謂小圈圈的質疑，不如走出辦公室，放下身段與黨籍立委直接溝通吧。
四、如果認為自己是對的，就多與人民直接溝通吧！特別要是用人民熟悉的語言，利用各種管道闡述自己的堅持與理念。要知道，美國歷來所有與國會衝突的總統，都是在直接向人民訴求後獲得反敗為勝。
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？
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？
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Assume Responsibility for Constitutional Rule
Assume Responsibility for Constitutional Rule
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 2, 2013
Summary: The Shanghai Free Trade Area has been officially launched. Meanwhile, the Taiwan Region remains mired in political struggle, and unable to extricate itself. The Legislative Yuan has shut down four times after reconvening. The Premier is prevented from fulfilling his constitutional duties and obligations. He is prevented from addressing the legislature and answering questions. Who knows when major bills can be passed? The government is in a state of semi-paralysis.
Full text below:
The Shanghai Free Trade Area has been officially launched. Meanwhile, the Taiwan Region remains mired in political struggle, and unable to extricate itself. The Legislative Yuan has shut down four times after reconvening. The Premier is prevented from fulfilling his constitutional duties and obligations. He is prevented from addressing the legislature and answering questions. Who knows when major bills can be passed? The government is in a state of semi-paralysis.
Is the struggle between Ma and Wang merely a personal grudge? Or is it a battle between right and wrong? Either way, it has led to executive vs legislative branch and ruling vs. opposition party political wrangling. As far as the people are concerned, personal grievances between power holders must not override the national interest. Power struggles between political parties must not trample the rights of the people. The national interest and the rights of the people must take precedence over their power struggles.
Is the current political storm the result of a conflict between the president and the speaker of the legislature? If it is, then it is a constitutional matter. Constitutional matters call for political solutions. President Ma has characterized the struggle as a matter of morality. He argues that when it became a matter of criminal justice, it must be handled according to due process of law. Now that the High Court has dismissed the KMT's appeal, Wang Jin-pyng's occupational status is temporarily assured. The public looks to the government to restore normal operations. Ma and Wang should suspend all other political and legal actions. Each should return to his constitutionally mandated post, and fulfill his own constitutional responsibilities.
The premier's situation in the legislature involves constitutional gridlock. That highlights the DPP's stubborn insistence that unless Premier Chiang apologizes, he will not be allowed to enter the Legislative Yuan, any address be damned. So here is a question. Once the central government general budget is sent to the Legislature, will it still refuse to allow Premier Chiang to speak? The Legislature has refused to hear the Premier. Therefore according to the Additional Articles to the Constitution, it must call for a vote of no confidence. It may not stonewall forever, inflicting slow death on the legislature and the executive.
Ruling and opposition party legislators have calculated the cost of their reelection campaigns. They are refusing to dissolve the legislature and call for a vote of no confidence. They have no problem pocketing their generous salaries while allowing the legislature to remain idle. They long ago became the malignancy afflicting democracy on Taiwan, but have yet to acknowledge it. Now consider the matter of impeachment. The threshold for impeaching the President is high.The threshold for a vote of no confidence, by contrast, is relatively low. Calling for the resignation of the cabinet requires a motion by only one-third of all legislators. It is not difficult for the opposition to make such a motion. As the majority party, the ruling Kuomintang must bear responsibility. It has two choices. One. It can refuse to allow such a motion to pass. Another vote of no confidence cannot be proposed within one year. By then the critical 2014 seven in one election will be upon us. By then a vote of no confidence will be irrelevant. The legislature should allow Premier Chiang to fulfill his constitutional duty and obligations.
Two. The KMT can allow the motion for a vote of no confidence to pass, and the legislature to be dissolved. It can allow current public sentiment regarding influence peddling and wire tapping to determine what is politically right and wrong. President Ma will then have to bear responsibility in the even the KMT loses its majority in the legislature. Wang Jin-pyng and the DPP will also have to answer to the public. The KMT could retain its majority, and rehabilitate its image. It could drastically change the suffocating atmosphere in the smoke filled back rooms of today's legislature. But suppose the Kuomintang fails to win a majority? It would be forced to accept a coalition government, or relinquish executive power. The President would be forced to hand over political power. Ma would be in limbo for another two years. Whenever he went out in public, he would have shoes thrown at him. If he chose to hide out in the presidential residence, he would be beseiged by protestors. No decrees would issue from the presidential palace. But at least this would give Taiwan a chance to begin anew.
Consider current reality. Executive Yuan functioning is hampered left and right. Wang Jin-pyng and DPP party whip Ker Chien-ming are pleased as punch with their backroom deals and their manipulation of legislative operations. But at least 40 bills are stalled in the legislature. TISA urgently needs review and approval. The earliest it can pass is by the end of the year. That means agreements between the ROC and other countries will be delayed. The decision whether to continue construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant or to shut it down has been delayed. Pension reform has been shelved. The Executive Yuan Organization Act leaves several ministries in limbo. These entities have not even had the chance to put up signs, let alone change their assignments.
In an even more outrageous development, the DPP minority has been able to paralyze the legislature. The KMT majority has been unable to control the podium. It has failed to ensure the passage of bills. Committee review has nearly collapsed under the weight of systemic backroom deals. Bills and budgets are no longer formulated by professionals. They have become sacrificial offerings in party to party transactions. When bills fail to pass, legislator take no responsibilty. Instead, the people as a whole suffer the consequences.
The Taipei District Court has already issued an injunction preserving Wang Jin-pyng's party membership. The KMT's appeal has been rejected. It can appeal again, but its chances of success are remote. Any civil action is bound to be delayed for some time. Meanwhile the president and the speaker of legislature each have their own constitutional responsibilities. These cannot be postponed indefinitely.
The priority now is for the President to resolve the executive and legislative impasse. Wang Jin-pyng has temporarily retained his official position. He must perform well as speaker of the legislature. He must prove that he can get things done. Allow Premier Chiang to deliver his policy address. He must make every effort to convince the opposition to compromise. If he cannot, he must ensure that major policies and budgets are not delayed. In particular, TISA, which impacts Taiwan's competitiveness in the service sector, cannot be indefinitely delayed.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.10.02
社論－為全民利益 各自擔起憲政責任
本報訊
上海自由貿易區正式掛牌，台灣陷入政爭卻不可自拔，開議後的立法院已4次院會停擺，閣揆無法履行憲政權利義務，在國會提出施政報告並接受質詢，重大法案通過更是遙遙無期，政務陷入半癱瘓狀態。
馬王之間不論是個人恩怨或大是大非之爭，現實上已造成行政權與立法權、在野黨與執政黨之間的政治角力。對全民而言，權力者的恩怨不能凌駕國家利益，政黨爭權奪利同樣不能把全民利益踩在腳下。國家利益與全民利益應該放在所有政治爭執的最前面來考慮。
如果這場風暴是總統與國會議長間的爭執，那是憲政問題，憲政問題應政治解決。但馬總統定調是政治人物的道德問題，進入司法程序後就堅持依法律程序進行。現在台灣高等法院既已駁回國民黨的抗告，王金平院長職務幾乎確定受到暫時狀態保護。全民期待政府恢復正常功能，馬王兩人應暫時停止其他政治或法律動作，各自回到自己的憲法地位，善盡憲法責任。
至於行政院長在國會進退不得，那是憲政僵局，照民進黨的堅持，江揆不道歉就不必到立法院，施政報告也罷，試問中央政府總預算案送達立法院後，是否仍不聽取報告？根據憲法增修條文，立法院既拒絕行政院長，就該對行政院提出不信任案，而非無限期擺爛，拖死國會的議事效率，也拖死行政機關的政務效能。
朝野立委算計自己的選舉成本，拒絕倒閣解散國會，自己坐領高薪，放任國家空轉，早已成為台灣民主之瘤而不自知。相對於彈劾、罷免總統的高門檻，倒閣相對容易，倒閣案只須三分之一立委提案即可成立，在野黨發動並不困難，做為多數的國民黨更要負起執政黨之責，其選擇有二：第一，不予通過，則1年內不能再對同一閣揆提出不信任案，屆時已是2014七合一選舉政治重洗牌的關鍵時刻，能不能再倒閣一次根本不重要，而立法院就要讓江揆履行其憲政權利與義務。
第二，通過倒閣案，解散國會，讓最新民意裁奪「關說」與「監聽」的政治是非，馬總統要承擔失去國會過半席次的風險，王金平和民進黨同樣要接受民意檢驗。國民黨過半，重建國會形象，大刀闊斧修改目前扼殺國會議事生命力的密室協商；國民黨不過半，不論是組成聯合政府或釋出行政權，總統都得認栽，交出政治實權。馬與其不死不活再拖2年，出門必遭鞋嗆，安居官邸遭圍攻，政令不出總統府，至少這是給台灣一個重新上路機會。
眼下的現實是，行政院政務推動左支右絀，王金平與民進黨大黨鞭柯建銘引以為傲的朝野密室協商，主導國會的議事效能，但目前至少有40多個急迫性法案全部卡住，隨便舉例，服貿協議急待審查通過，最快也得到年底才能進入逐條審查，意味台灣與其他各國的相關協議都得隨之延宕，此外，核四續建或停建再度進入停擺狀態，年金改革方案根本束之高閣，行政院組織改造後還有多個部會組織法仍在立法院待審中，機關連掛新牌的機會都無，遑論工作的重新調整和布局。
更離譜的是，民進黨若在國會以少數遂行其杯葛策略，占有多數席次的國民黨既無力守住主席台，更無力主導法案進度，委員會審查制在朝野密室協商的慣性下近乎崩盤，法案與預算失去專業的判準，成為政治交換、政黨交易的祭品，法案疏失時有所聞，無一立委為此負責，全民卻得承擔苦果。
台北地院對王金平黨籍假處分已經裁准，國民黨提出抗告遭到駁回，即使再抗告，翻盤機會微乎其微，至於民事訴訟勢必拖延一段時間，但總統與國會議長都有各自要承擔的憲政責任，不容無限期延宕。
目前當務之急，總統要想盡辦法解決行政、立法兩院的僵局，王金平既暫保院長職位，就要做個稱職的國會議長，證明自己在國會的調和鼎鼐之能，讓江揆順利提出施政報告，若盡一切努力仍不能說服在野黨妥協，也要確保政府重大政策與預算案不受拖延，尤其攸關台灣競爭力的服貿協議不能無止境遲滯審查。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 2, 2013
Summary: The Shanghai Free Trade Area has been officially launched. Meanwhile, the Taiwan Region remains mired in political struggle, and unable to extricate itself. The Legislative Yuan has shut down four times after reconvening. The Premier is prevented from fulfilling his constitutional duties and obligations. He is prevented from addressing the legislature and answering questions. Who knows when major bills can be passed? The government is in a state of semi-paralysis.
Full text below:
The Shanghai Free Trade Area has been officially launched. Meanwhile, the Taiwan Region remains mired in political struggle, and unable to extricate itself. The Legislative Yuan has shut down four times after reconvening. The Premier is prevented from fulfilling his constitutional duties and obligations. He is prevented from addressing the legislature and answering questions. Who knows when major bills can be passed? The government is in a state of semi-paralysis.
Is the struggle between Ma and Wang merely a personal grudge? Or is it a battle between right and wrong? Either way, it has led to executive vs legislative branch and ruling vs. opposition party political wrangling. As far as the people are concerned, personal grievances between power holders must not override the national interest. Power struggles between political parties must not trample the rights of the people. The national interest and the rights of the people must take precedence over their power struggles.
Is the current political storm the result of a conflict between the president and the speaker of the legislature? If it is, then it is a constitutional matter. Constitutional matters call for political solutions. President Ma has characterized the struggle as a matter of morality. He argues that when it became a matter of criminal justice, it must be handled according to due process of law. Now that the High Court has dismissed the KMT's appeal, Wang Jin-pyng's occupational status is temporarily assured. The public looks to the government to restore normal operations. Ma and Wang should suspend all other political and legal actions. Each should return to his constitutionally mandated post, and fulfill his own constitutional responsibilities.
The premier's situation in the legislature involves constitutional gridlock. That highlights the DPP's stubborn insistence that unless Premier Chiang apologizes, he will not be allowed to enter the Legislative Yuan, any address be damned. So here is a question. Once the central government general budget is sent to the Legislature, will it still refuse to allow Premier Chiang to speak? The Legislature has refused to hear the Premier. Therefore according to the Additional Articles to the Constitution, it must call for a vote of no confidence. It may not stonewall forever, inflicting slow death on the legislature and the executive.
Ruling and opposition party legislators have calculated the cost of their reelection campaigns. They are refusing to dissolve the legislature and call for a vote of no confidence. They have no problem pocketing their generous salaries while allowing the legislature to remain idle. They long ago became the malignancy afflicting democracy on Taiwan, but have yet to acknowledge it. Now consider the matter of impeachment. The threshold for impeaching the President is high.The threshold for a vote of no confidence, by contrast, is relatively low. Calling for the resignation of the cabinet requires a motion by only one-third of all legislators. It is not difficult for the opposition to make such a motion. As the majority party, the ruling Kuomintang must bear responsibility. It has two choices. One. It can refuse to allow such a motion to pass. Another vote of no confidence cannot be proposed within one year. By then the critical 2014 seven in one election will be upon us. By then a vote of no confidence will be irrelevant. The legislature should allow Premier Chiang to fulfill his constitutional duty and obligations.
Two. The KMT can allow the motion for a vote of no confidence to pass, and the legislature to be dissolved. It can allow current public sentiment regarding influence peddling and wire tapping to determine what is politically right and wrong. President Ma will then have to bear responsibility in the even the KMT loses its majority in the legislature. Wang Jin-pyng and the DPP will also have to answer to the public. The KMT could retain its majority, and rehabilitate its image. It could drastically change the suffocating atmosphere in the smoke filled back rooms of today's legislature. But suppose the Kuomintang fails to win a majority? It would be forced to accept a coalition government, or relinquish executive power. The President would be forced to hand over political power. Ma would be in limbo for another two years. Whenever he went out in public, he would have shoes thrown at him. If he chose to hide out in the presidential residence, he would be beseiged by protestors. No decrees would issue from the presidential palace. But at least this would give Taiwan a chance to begin anew.
Consider current reality. Executive Yuan functioning is hampered left and right. Wang Jin-pyng and DPP party whip Ker Chien-ming are pleased as punch with their backroom deals and their manipulation of legislative operations. But at least 40 bills are stalled in the legislature. TISA urgently needs review and approval. The earliest it can pass is by the end of the year. That means agreements between the ROC and other countries will be delayed. The decision whether to continue construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant or to shut it down has been delayed. Pension reform has been shelved. The Executive Yuan Organization Act leaves several ministries in limbo. These entities have not even had the chance to put up signs, let alone change their assignments.
In an even more outrageous development, the DPP minority has been able to paralyze the legislature. The KMT majority has been unable to control the podium. It has failed to ensure the passage of bills. Committee review has nearly collapsed under the weight of systemic backroom deals. Bills and budgets are no longer formulated by professionals. They have become sacrificial offerings in party to party transactions. When bills fail to pass, legislator take no responsibilty. Instead, the people as a whole suffer the consequences.
The Taipei District Court has already issued an injunction preserving Wang Jin-pyng's party membership. The KMT's appeal has been rejected. It can appeal again, but its chances of success are remote. Any civil action is bound to be delayed for some time. Meanwhile the president and the speaker of legislature each have their own constitutional responsibilities. These cannot be postponed indefinitely.
The priority now is for the President to resolve the executive and legislative impasse. Wang Jin-pyng has temporarily retained his official position. He must perform well as speaker of the legislature. He must prove that he can get things done. Allow Premier Chiang to deliver his policy address. He must make every effort to convince the opposition to compromise. If he cannot, he must ensure that major policies and budgets are not delayed. In particular, TISA, which impacts Taiwan's competitiveness in the service sector, cannot be indefinitely delayed.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.10.02
社論－為全民利益 各自擔起憲政責任
本報訊
上海自由貿易區正式掛牌，台灣陷入政爭卻不可自拔，開議後的立法院已4次院會停擺，閣揆無法履行憲政權利義務，在國會提出施政報告並接受質詢，重大法案通過更是遙遙無期，政務陷入半癱瘓狀態。
馬王之間不論是個人恩怨或大是大非之爭，現實上已造成行政權與立法權、在野黨與執政黨之間的政治角力。對全民而言，權力者的恩怨不能凌駕國家利益，政黨爭權奪利同樣不能把全民利益踩在腳下。國家利益與全民利益應該放在所有政治爭執的最前面來考慮。
如果這場風暴是總統與國會議長間的爭執，那是憲政問題，憲政問題應政治解決。但馬總統定調是政治人物的道德問題，進入司法程序後就堅持依法律程序進行。現在台灣高等法院既已駁回國民黨的抗告，王金平院長職務幾乎確定受到暫時狀態保護。全民期待政府恢復正常功能，馬王兩人應暫時停止其他政治或法律動作，各自回到自己的憲法地位，善盡憲法責任。
至於行政院長在國會進退不得，那是憲政僵局，照民進黨的堅持，江揆不道歉就不必到立法院，施政報告也罷，試問中央政府總預算案送達立法院後，是否仍不聽取報告？根據憲法增修條文，立法院既拒絕行政院長，就該對行政院提出不信任案，而非無限期擺爛，拖死國會的議事效率，也拖死行政機關的政務效能。
朝野立委算計自己的選舉成本，拒絕倒閣解散國會，自己坐領高薪，放任國家空轉，早已成為台灣民主之瘤而不自知。相對於彈劾、罷免總統的高門檻，倒閣相對容易，倒閣案只須三分之一立委提案即可成立，在野黨發動並不困難，做為多數的國民黨更要負起執政黨之責，其選擇有二：第一，不予通過，則1年內不能再對同一閣揆提出不信任案，屆時已是2014七合一選舉政治重洗牌的關鍵時刻，能不能再倒閣一次根本不重要，而立法院就要讓江揆履行其憲政權利與義務。
第二，通過倒閣案，解散國會，讓最新民意裁奪「關說」與「監聽」的政治是非，馬總統要承擔失去國會過半席次的風險，王金平和民進黨同樣要接受民意檢驗。國民黨過半，重建國會形象，大刀闊斧修改目前扼殺國會議事生命力的密室協商；國民黨不過半，不論是組成聯合政府或釋出行政權，總統都得認栽，交出政治實權。馬與其不死不活再拖2年，出門必遭鞋嗆，安居官邸遭圍攻，政令不出總統府，至少這是給台灣一個重新上路機會。
眼下的現實是，行政院政務推動左支右絀，王金平與民進黨大黨鞭柯建銘引以為傲的朝野密室協商，主導國會的議事效能，但目前至少有40多個急迫性法案全部卡住，隨便舉例，服貿協議急待審查通過，最快也得到年底才能進入逐條審查，意味台灣與其他各國的相關協議都得隨之延宕，此外，核四續建或停建再度進入停擺狀態，年金改革方案根本束之高閣，行政院組織改造後還有多個部會組織法仍在立法院待審中，機關連掛新牌的機會都無，遑論工作的重新調整和布局。
更離譜的是，民進黨若在國會以少數遂行其杯葛策略，占有多數席次的國民黨既無力守住主席台，更無力主導法案進度，委員會審查制在朝野密室協商的慣性下近乎崩盤，法案與預算失去專業的判準，成為政治交換、政黨交易的祭品，法案疏失時有所聞，無一立委為此負責，全民卻得承擔苦果。
台北地院對王金平黨籍假處分已經裁准，國民黨提出抗告遭到駁回，即使再抗告，翻盤機會微乎其微，至於民事訴訟勢必拖延一段時間，但總統與國會議長都有各自要承擔的憲政責任，不容無限期延宕。
目前當務之急，總統要想盡辦法解決行政、立法兩院的僵局，王金平既暫保院長職位，就要做個稱職的國會議長，證明自己在國會的調和鼎鼐之能，讓江揆順利提出施政報告，若盡一切努力仍不能說服在野黨妥協，也要確保政府重大政策與預算案不受拖延，尤其攸關台灣競爭力的服貿協議不能無止境遲滯審查。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)