Responsible Leadership

In my previous post, I criticised Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for their lack of leadership in allowing (and tacitly supporting) the fighting that has been going on in the Legislature over the last fortnight.

Yesterday, it was President Chen Shui-bian fanning the flames:

Chen, in a meeting with members of his independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) late on Thursday, told DPP lawmakers to block the opposition initiative at all costs.

Well, that’s just great. The day after the latest punch-up, Chen is telling his legislators to block a new law “at all costs“. Short of telling them that they didn’t put enough opposition lawmakers in hospital last time, I can’t think of a worse way to ask Taiwanese legislators to act.

The ‘Peace Bill’

The legislation that Chen is talking about is the PFP proposed ‘Peace bill’:

If approved, the bill would set up a peace promotion commission responsible for holding talks with Beijing and codify the “1992 consensus” that had formed the basis for fence-mending talks up to 1999.

The 1992 consensus says there is “one China”, though each side has its own interpretation of what that means, and is deeply controversial in Taiwan.

It’s easy to see why Chen is upset by this: he doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of the 1992 consensus, and believes the ‘One China’ principle is purely a fiction designed to give legitimacy to the PRCs claim over Taiwan.

However, there is more to it than that: this legislation is an attempt to usurp the authority of existing bodies like the Mainland Affairs Council and the Straits Exchange Foundation (who have been handling links with China for many years), and more seriously the powers of the President; It is very likely that this law will be found to be unconstitutional because of this [*].

A triumph of hyperbole over reason

So there are good reasons for arguing against this bill, but there’s no need to treat it like the end of the world:

“If the peace promotion bill passes in its present version, Taiwan is finished. This is a war about life and death for the destiny and future of Taiwan,” Chen said.

“It is called peace law on the surface, but it is in fact a surrender law.”

Taiwanese politicians all seem to love this type of overreaction – and this penchant for hyperbole could be one of the reasons the two sides have such a deep antipathy to each other.

Declaring official support for ‘One China’ is (debatably) a stupid move – but nothing more. After all, it’s going to happen in 2008 anyway when Ma Ying-jeou becomes president (as seems almost certain at the moment), and more importantly it is not an irrevocable move. If the DPP ever gain a majority in the legislature, then they can repeal the law, and move back to their position again. Finally, the fact that it will be passed to the Council of Grand Justices to determine whether it’s unconstitutional or not gives the DPP another way to block the bill.

So, President Chen: Tell your legislators to vote against the bill. Tell them to explain to their constituents why it is a bad bill. Tell them to demand a constitutional ruling. But please don’t tell people fresh from a fight to treat it as ‘a war about life or death’ and to fight it ‘at all costs’. They just might take you literally, and bring weapons more dangerous than a mobile phone to the legislature next time.

* It is certainly the presidents responsibility to handle relations with foreign powers – but of course the PRC isn’t a normal foreign power. However, the president is also responsible for stuff like declaring war, making peace and organising treaties, which likely covers the main substance of the ‘peace bill’.

4 thoughts on “Responsible Leadership

  1. Pingback: The View from Taiwan

  2. Wolf Reinhold

    [[[It’s easy to see why Chen is upset by this: he doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of the 1992 consensus, and believes the ‘One China’ rinciple is purely a fiction designed to give legitimacy to the PRCs claim over Taiwan.]]]

    Both Hsu Huei-yu and Koo Chen-fu, who participated in the 1992 meeting as SEF delegates, have publicly affirmed that the meeting did not result in any consensus on the “one China” issue. Instead, they claimed, both sides agreed to proceed with future meetings on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Koo stated in his biography that, “Both sides across the strait have different interpretations of the 1992 Hong Kong meeting. Rather than using ‘consensus,’ the term of art should be ‘understanding’ or ‘accord’ to better reflect the fact, thus avoiding untruthful application.”

    This is quoted from an Internet source but says what I wanted to. The fact is that Chen has a right to be steamed about the “consensus” that even the people there say didn’t occur. It IS a PRC fiction. Period.

    By the way, Ma has little support in the south and his election as president is far, far from a sure thing. My money is on the two pandas from China as the next president and vice president.

  3. Taiwan's Other Side

    Nice post. Though likely unconstitutional, this move towards peace ensures is at least a step forward, which is more than we’ve had in a long time from the DPP. This bill threatens the life of Chen Shui-bian’s divisive ‘Taiwanization’ and independence movements, not Taiwan’s future.

Comments are closed.