Peace Bill

Is it unconstitutional?

  • Anything sponsored by pan Blue is unconstitutional (Yes)
  • Mayor Ma supports it so it must be constitutional (No)
  • Peace is not unconstitutional, is it… (Maybe)

0 voters

In recent days the pan-Green attack machine has focused in on the PFP proposed peace bill. The bill basically codifies “1992 consensus” and “CSB 5 no’s.”

If the bill passes it would mean that ROC accepts the fact that there are different interpretations to “One China” and that ROC will not engage in any acts of changing the name of ROC.

In addition, it would form another committee outside of the MAC to negotiate key cross strait issues with the mainland.

Is this related to the daily punch-ups in the Yuan?

(although I really don’t consider the effeminate pushing & bitch-slapping they do a real punch-up)

No. The current punch ups are about the details of how to setup a media oversight committee.

The ‘peace bill’ is the next set of punch-ups.

Do you have the full text of the agreement? (Chinese OK) I’ve searched high and low both on and off the net and noone seems to be able to offer anything.

I see a lot of people blasting (or supporting) it before they even know what’s in it. No doubt with the PFP behind it I will end up doing the former, but you never know, eh?

[quote=“ac_dropout”]In recent days the pan-Green attack machine has focused in on the PFP proposed peace bill. The bill basically codifies “1992 consensus” and “CSB 5 no’s.”

If the bill passes it would mean that ROC accepts the fact that there are different interpretations to “One China” and that ROC will not engage in any acts of changing the name of ROC.

In addition, it would form another committee outside of the MAC to negotiate key cross strait issues with the mainland.[/quote]

The worst part of this bill is that it gives a committee of the legislature the power to directly negotiate with China over the top of the President, the MAC and the SEF.

This is terribly unconstitutional and goes against the democratic principles of the separation of powers. Negotiating with other countries, making treaties etc are the prerogative of the executive - the President.

I don’t like the Blues using their majority to pass their own agenda, but that’s democracy - they have a majority. This on the other hand is undemocratic misuse of legislative power to usurp the power of the president.

Brian

The President passed a “secret” letter to President Hu through James Soong.

Wouldn’t it be better to have a new committee to try have a transparent dialogue with their PRC counterpart, than ROC resorting to secret letters passing. (Makes you wonder whatever happened to email and AIM for this kind of stuff)

Not to be nit picky, but no standing President of the ROC has ever negotiated with the PRC after 1949. All negotiation have always been handled through “unofficial,” “non government” bodies.

Also the committee will contain members from both pan-Green and pan-Blue parties.

But many also feel they are “checking” and “balancing” the executive branch skewd TI aggenda on Taiwan. The President’s approval rating at 25% and his TI supporting party approval rating at 24% is not an accident.

But … but … but … The 2004 Referendum showed that the people of Taiwan were opposed to cross-strait negotiation. You can’t setup something in direct contradiction of the referendum outcome can you? Next you’re going to be arguing for the arms package :unamused:

Wanna bet?

It would be great if the CCP would talk to the elected representative of the Taiwanese people instead of those most prepared to sell out or offer better pro-China leverage. It would be awesome if I had a magic flying skateboard too.

Again, can anyone actually give me the full text of the proposal? Does a full text even exist? Is this another ‘1992 consensus’?

HA.

Well said. I’m not sure why ac complains about the ‘skewed agenda’ of the Executive Yuan because the last I checked, the agenda on this front was well and truly coloured Blue. Like you say though, we live in a democratic Taiwan and I’m fine with this as long as both sides play by the rules.

Could anyone imagine the opposition Democrats in the US going over their President’s head, making their own deals in Iraq and withdrawing troops? Just because the opposition - or even public - don’t care for certain policies doesn’t mean that democratic process can be thrown out to go down the anarchistic path of side-deals and backhanders. Maybe the next time I don’t like some new tax bill, I can get some opposition friends to declare it void and make up their own bill? Utterly ludicrous. I can’t imagine any other country where this would be tolerated and I’m disappointed that Chen and the DPP have shown a complete lack of spine in inter-party affairs.

Is it just me or does it seem the Blues still haven’t figured out that Taiwan has moved from a Nationalist autocracy to a multi-party democracy?

[quote=“Bu Lai En”]The worst part of this bill is that it gives a committee of the legislature the power to directly negotiate with China over the top of the President, the MAC and the SEF.

This is terribly unconstitutional and goes against the democratic principles of the separation of powers. Negotiating with other countries, making treaties etc are the prerogative of the executive - the President.

I don’t like the Blues using their majority to pass their own agenda, but that’s democracy - they have a majority. This on the other hand is undemocratic misuse of legislative power to usurp the power of the president.

Brian[/quote]

llary,

ROC use to be a multi-party republic which included the CCP. Perhaps if certain pan-Green radical elements accepted ROC history instead of trying to reinvent history a solution might have been found sooner.

Decrying the LY process as being not democratic is also a strawman argument. Just because the majority of people on Taiwan don’t support TI and elected official that don’t support TI either, doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

TI is the movement that’s trying to deconstruct the ROC constitution…now that’s “unconstitutional.”

If the LY passes a law which gives it powers outside those given to it by the constitution, or which are given by the constitution to a different branch of government, then it’s unconstitutional. Quite simple really. The pan-Blues really should know this because they’ve been through the whole process before: convene a ‘truth commision’, have its powers ruled unconstitutional and then watch everyone ignore the (almost powerless) committee.

How are the attempts to change the constitution unconstitutional? If they follow the constitutionally defined process for change (which the recent changes did), then they are 100% constitutional. In fact, the next round of constitutional reforms don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of passing precisely because they will follow the constitutional process.

The constitution of ROC didn’t really forsee the Chinese Civil war. There is no articles dealing with how to resolve a Civil War. Since all this is really about is the legal definition of the “Mainland.”

If you wish to be a strict interpreter of the ROC constitiution, then the Mainland is ROC territory as defined by the Department of Survey. ROC officials doesn’t need Presidential power to negotiate with anyone from Mongolia to Tibet. It’s all a domestic issue by the ROC constitution.

But if you’re a TI “revisionist,” then you can pick and choose whatever suit your need to make a case.

LTH “non-challenge” of the PRC is not codified in the constitution. LTH proclamation of “ROC is dead” is not codified. “1992 consensus” is not codified. CSB’s “5 no’s” are not codified. TI legal stature in terms of ROC constitutional interpretation is a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Even ROC administration’s protest to Google’s map label of “Taiwan, Province of China” was not supported by strict ROC constituational interpretation.

[quote]Article 35
The President shall be the Chief of State and shall represent the Republic of China in foreign relations.

Article 38
The President shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, exercise the powers of concluding treaties, declaring war, and making peace.[/quote]
I’ll grant you that whether negotiations with the PRC count as ‘foreign relations’ is open to debate, but Article 38 is pretty clear about who should be responsible for treaties and peace.

A strict ROC constitutional interpretation doesn’t include Taiwan in ROC territory, so “Taiwan, Province of China” is not supported by the constitution. CKS had such respect for the constitution that he didn’t bother to follow constitutionally defined rules to either add Taiwan to the ROC or to remove (then return) Mongolia.

Last time before I give up and take up fishing or something… does anyone have a source for me to examine the full text of this proposed peace bill - online, offline, English, Chinese or otherwise?

I’m sorry, but this is the Taiwan Politics Forum. Making arguments based on actual facts is strictly forbidden. :wink:

[quote=“ac_dropout”]llary,

ROC use to be a multi-party republic which included the CCP. Perhaps if certain pan-Green radical elements accepted ROC history instead of trying to reinvent history a solution might have been found sooner.[/quote]

I literally re-read this ten times and I still don’t understand what you’re getting at. Spell it out for me. You’re saying that Taiwan is no longer a multi-party system? You’re saying that the CCP should be welcomed to Taiwan or included in party politics? Sorry, I just don’t get it.

Also, as I have said before, it’s all very well ‘accepting history’, but even some of the world’s best scholars of military and international law could argue long into the night about Taiwan’s status. It’s neither as simple as ‘Taiwan is part of China. Always has been, always will be.’ nor ‘Taiwan is independent. Always has been, always will be.’ To suggest otherwise is spurious over-simplification.

I like your style. No majority support for TI, therefore widespread support for unification. And even you aren’t slippy enough to suggest that a Legislative Yuan led committee wouldn’t go for unification as soon as possible. I can just imagine Chan, Soong and friends coming back from their momentous deal with the PRC.

‘So yeh. We’ve accepted One China, Two Systems with a 50 year limitation on democratic autonomy and a bit of a Beijing-led cabinet reshuffle.’

‘Err… so what did you get for our side?’

‘Oh, well I wangled an AWFULLY nice holiday home in Florida. Beach house and everything.’

Or a ‘constitutional amendment’. Guess it all depends how you want to spin it.

llary,

I’m just alluding to the fact that the current administration’s adversion to dealing with the CCP is self imposed. On the mainland there exist a KMT party, which is a left over of those that stayed behind, and are part of the 8 minor parties on the mainland.

On Taiwan, there is a very specific law that bans the CCP from existing in the ROC. In fact there was in a news a few months back of the administration trying to take action against a registered CCP on ROC that was really just a party of one individual.

If the CSB administration wanted to they can invite any number of CCP members individual overs to manipulate ROC public opinion. They can invite the most hawkish CCP individual to talk about Armageddon and drive the moderates into more extreme positions on Taiwan. They can invite the most dove-ish CCP individual to talk about Utopia and drive extremist into more moderate positions.

The point is the CCP use to be part of the ROC. Perhaps they should be invited back in to participate in the political dialogue on Taiwan directly.

There is no wide spread support of unification either on Taiwan. But what the “unification” offers is more room to deal with PRC while retaining ROC political independence.

This is great fun… debating a bill and we don’t even know what’s in it. Take the money or open the box… nnnng money… box… MONEY… TAKE THE BOX!!! SHIT IT’S A DUCK’S FOOT!!

You can find it here. lis.ly.gov.tw/ttscgi/ttsweb?@0:0 … 9622416713

If the “mainland” is constitutionally part of the ROC, and if the CCP is constitutionally barred from the ROC, as some have stated (cough AC cough), then any room for dealing with the unconstitutional PRC should be used to rectify the illegal retention of political independence by the PRC. Shouldn’t negotiations focus on the CCP’s illegality and occupation of ROC territory on the “mainland?”

Absurd, isn’t it? Then why is it not absurd for the PRC to challenge the ROC’s authority? Does might make right? An unwanted takeover of Taiwan by any means or name is still a takeover.

If the Taiwanese are pressured/confused enough to accept communist rule instead of the form of democracy they now enjoy, that’s their poor decision; it should only be made in the form of a referendum on unification. Did the voters tell the LY to make its own committee to pursue its own negotiations with the enemy? As has been pointed out by another, the voters boycotted the referendum question about installing a “peace” mechanism.