Wang case shows KMT complicity

The decision of President Chen Shui-bian to appoint Legislative Speaker and former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice chairman Wang Jin-pyng as his proxy to the informal APEC leaders' summit next month was indeed a creative one that accomplishes multiple goals.

These are improving the relationship between the Presidential Office and the Legislative Yuan, helping to repair the relationship between his government and some sections of the KMT, and elevating the level of his proxy to the APEC meeting.

However, true to form, Beijing has opposed the idea.

It isn't hard to figure out Beijing's reasons for saying "no." Making Taiwan look bad and constricting Taiwan's breathing space in the international community are pretty safe options when it comes to second-guessing Beijing's motives.

Under the circumstances, the reaction of the pan-blue camp and its leaders are much more noteworthy. Naturally, the pan-blue camp jumped for joy upon hearing the announcement. Even KMT Chairman and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou said he would be "happy" to see it happen.

The real interesting twist came when Beijing rejected the idea. Instead of condemning Beijing for rejecting what he had once considered a great idea, Ma went on to blame the Presidential Office for insisting on the appointment while knowing full well that the Chinese government would say "no."

There are some obvious problems in the logic underlying Ma's position. First, since when has it been a rule that Taiwan must seek the approval of Beijing when appointing delegates to APEC's informal summit meeting? Even if the host country has typically deferred to the relentless and unreasonable demands of Beijing, it is an entirely different matter if people in Taiwan began to see the blessing of Beijing as the top priority when deciding who to send.

Then there is the talk by pan-blue camp members about helping to resolve the problem through its "channels of communication" with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as if they genuinely believe that they have a shot at changing the CCP's position. On second thought, perhaps they already know that they have no chance, so they are saying that their communication with the CCP would have been easier had it taken place before Beijing said no.

But, didn't Chen tell Wang weeks earlier? Why didn't they begin the talks then?

Ever since former KMT chairman Lien Chan visited China earlier this year, the KMT has been acting as if their words carry weight with the CCP leadership. This display is either intended to impress pro-China constituents in Taiwan or else suggests a hopeless case of self-delusion. During Lien's trip to China this year, he did not even dare to affirm the sovereignty of the "Republic of China on Taiwan," let alone convince the Chinese leadership to take a softer approach toward Taiwan. This time around it would truly be a miracle if they can convince Beijing to accept Wang's appointment.

The only reason that the Chinese leadership was willing to extend the pan-blue leaders a half-decent reception was because this added great value to the Chinese unification propaganda campaign by endorsing the "Greater China" ideology. There is nothing more to the relationship. It is about time everyone saw the truth for what it is.

`Peace' bill compromise is violating democracy

By Wang Chien-chuang

Although it has been a long time since People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong left the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the KMT is still struggling to escape his influence. During elections, it often has to consider him and also strike compromises with him in the legislature.

Compromise in itself is nothing bad, but if it is an awkward compromise whose only goal is to join the two parties, then it is no longer a compromise, but rather becomes a matter of hypocrisy or even appeasement.

Take the cross-strait peace advancement bill, for example. No one opposes cross-strait peace, but anyone who has a basic understanding of constitutional matters and takes a look at the bill must conclude that the legislature must not pass this piece of legislation.

Why? Because it violates the Constitution and therefore is not a law that should be passed in a country adhering to constitutional politics.

There are both public and party considerations behind the PFP's draft. The public motive is that since the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) accession to power, it has taken a passive approach to cross-strait issues, with lots of slogans and little action. Therefore, since the executive has done nothing, the legislative branch has to take over.

The party's selfish motive, however, is Soong's interest in the cross-strait relationship. After his presidential failure, he became even more bent on leaving his legacy in the area of cross-strait relations. The bill is thus entirely about etching Soong's name into the annals of history.

The legislature's attempt to pass laws to counteract the executive's inaction may be constitutional, but if the legislature expands its powers to the point where it replaces the executive, it violates both constitutional powers and the spirit of representative democracy.

One example of this is the peace advancement bill's special cross-strait negotiation council. It would be so powerful that it could sign a cross-strait peace agreement, as well as educational, financial and free trade deals, agreements with non-governmental organizations and so on, making it almost omnipotent.

The problem is that the peace advancement bill would become a permanent law, and not an ad hoc law such as the 319 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute. Ad hoc laws have an expiry date, whereas permanent legislation is for ever.

That means that even though the shooting committee could substitute the executive for a time, it would be dissolved as soon as the "truth" was exposed. If cross-strait peace is not achieved, however, the special cross-strait negotiation council would forever usurp the powers of the executive.

What's more, this concentration of cross-strait policymaking, legislative, executive and judicial power in the hands of 17 specially appointed members in a single institution with special powers is no different from an oligarchy. No matter how impotent the DPP government, there surely is no need to move toward oligarchy.

The peace advancement bill would turn Chen's "five noes" and the controversial "1992 consensus" into law, and this shows a lack of intelligence. The DPP will never accept that there is such a thing as the "1992 consensus," so how could they let it be written into a law?

Unless the KMT can distance itself from the PFP on the peace advancement bill issue and from Soong, it will never be able to free itself from Soong's influence. Furthermore, the Grand Justices will probably deem it unconstitutional anyway. KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou is a lawyer. Why would he let the KMT pass unconstitutional legislation and sacrifice the party on the PFP's altar?

Wang Chien-chuang is the president of The Journalist magazine.