The May 20 presidential inauguration is apparently becoming the nation's next political battleground. While it is not surprising that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Interestingly, presidential spokesman James Huang's (
However, the actual issuance of such an injunction would definitely be inadvisable from the practical and political perspectives, and would have a weak legal basis.
According to the Constitution, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Recall Law (
In particular, the law's Article 106 provides that upon a final court verdict overturning the election result, the original election winners will be relieved of their duties as of the date of the verdict. The law's Article 107 states that such a subsequent verdict overturning election results does not have any impact on the original election winner's performance of duties after the inauguration and before this verdict. These articles indicate that the existing law specifically provides for situations in which election win
ners are inaugurated with lawsuits seeking to overturn their victory still pending in the court.
In view of the criteria for the courts' issuance of injunctions, the PFP is unlikely to prevail anyway. One important criterion is whether there is an urgent need to prevent major harm or injury through such an injunction. Frankly speaking, one can hardly think of any harm or injury that could come from Chen's inauguration, while one can think of many that would result from an injunction against his inauguration.
Such potential harm would not only weigh heavily against such an injunction's issuance, but would also provide evidence of PFP irresponsibility in seeking the injunction.
If Chen and Lu are prohibited from taking office on May 20, what will happen to this country? The social chaos and panic are easy to imagine.
Citing the example of South Korea, where the congressional speaker is serving as acting president before courts ruled on the impeachment of President Roh Moo-hyun, the PFP is speaking about having Legislative Yuan Speaker and KMT Vice Chairman Wang Jin-pyng (
Instead, the example of South Korea should serve as a warning for the PFP and the KMT. In last Thursday's Korean congressional elections, which were perceived by many as a referendum on the impeachment of Roh by the Grand National Party, the pro-Roh Uri Party captured a surprising legislative majority for the first time, suggesting that the majority of South Koreans disapproves of the chaos and restlessness sparked by the impeachment.
If the PFP and KMT continue this charade, ignoring the people's wish for peace and stability, they will pay a hefty price in future elections.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS