Taiwan Parliament , all time controls the Executive Yaun .

Premier yet to deliver report to Legislature

On  September  13,  2013  ,  the   Taipei   District  Court  issued  an   injunction   ,   a  temporary  stopping   the   revoking  of   Wang  's  KMT  
                                                                                                   
party  membership  .It   is  a  stupid  mistaken   judgement  which     was  without  any  basic  guidance  , such  as   Civil  Association  or  Organization  Laws  .  His  Lawsuit   is  not  under  the  scope  of   a  Property   Act  and   Law  of  TORT  :   Why  or  What   was   the  Irreparable  Damage   ? 
          It  was   no   special   Damage ,  Injury   should   be   Direct   and  Substantial    which  were  Nothing  .                                               
       Wang   began  to   use  the  Legislative  Function  as   a   tool  to   defend  or  appeal  his  influnce  peddling  scandal  .  He   was  not  Present   in  the   court  but   continued  to   make  potential   power  of   him  with  opposition  lawmakers   at   the  Legislative   Yuan  .   Premier   Jian  Yi-huah  has   failed   to   deliver  his  adminstrative   report   in   a   second  attempt   ,  as   opposition  party  ,  DPP  Lawmakers  kept   up  their   occupation  of   podium . It  will  create   another  Lee   Teng-hui  crisis  of   KMT  party  in  2000 when  he   resigned  his  Chairmanship  on   24   March  . Don't  forget  ,  the   manner  of  Wang  Jin-pying  who   never  takes  or  declares  the  responsibility  of  the  Legislators  fighting   in   Taiwan  Parliament  . 
               Taiwan's  Lawmakers  thoroughly  embarassed  the   Island's  
Democratic  System  on   countless   occassion :   they  have  brawled , bit  and  scratch  each  other  in   the  Government's   debating  chambers and  have  brough to complete  a   standstill  with   filibusters  and  occupied  the  Legislative  Assembly  Hall   for  nights   without  any   functions   .  Noone  , Nobody  take  any   responsibility  for   the          manner  of  the   opposotion  parties  with   the  agreement  of    Wang   who  is   the  most  powerful   over  them  .  Only  the  hope  of  people  of   Taiwan  is  that  to  be  looking  forward  to  the  High  Court  Judges   '   decision  without  under  the  Politicians'  coercing  but   according    to    the   rule  of  Law  .
                                      
    Hello!  High  Court  Judges  ,  Don't  forget  that  ,  you   are  neither   the  Voters   of  a   Legislator  nor  a   Politician  ,as   your  rank  of  Judicial  position  under   the  Juditial   Yuan  .Got  bless  with  you  ! 

Rule of laws and Moral Courage in Taiwan .( The new Justice minister-designate to face stiff challenges. ).

 

                               
Justice minister-designate to face stiff challenges

If   Men  and  Women  do   not  possess    the   Moral   Courage    , they  have  no  security   whatever   for  the  preservation    of  any   other  .  It  is   the  courage   to  seek  and   to   speak   the  truth  ,  the   courage   to   be  just   ,  the   courage   to   be   honest  ,    the   courage   to   resist  temptation  ,  the   courage  to  do  one's  duty  . 
              I   hope  I  shall  always  possess   firmness  and   virtue  enough   to   maintain  what   I   consider  the   most  enviable  of   all   titles  ,   the  character   of   an   HONEST   MAN.   (  George   Washington   ) ...............

  RULE 

Many organizations and scholars have advocated the rule of law and have taken positions regarding the interpretation of that concept they prefer.

International Commission of Jurists[

edit source]

In 1959, an international gathering of over 185 judges, lawyers, and law professors from 53 countries, meeting in 

New Delhi and speaking as the International Commission of Jurists, made a declaration as to the fundamental principle of the rule of law. This was theDeclaration of Delhi. They declared that the rule of law implies certain rights and freedoms, that it implies an independent judiciary, and that it implies social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity. The Declaration of Delhi did not, however, suggest that the rule of law requires legislative power to be subject to judicial review.[47]

United Nations[

edit source]

The 

Secretary-General of the United Nations defines the rule of law as:[48]

a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, 

accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.

The General Assembly has considered rule of law as an agenda item since 1992, with renewed interest since 2006 and has adopted resolutions at its last three sessions.

[49] The Security Council has held a number of thematic debates on the rule of law,[50] and adopted resolutions emphasizing the importance of these issues in the context of women, peace and security,[51] children in armed conflict,[52] and the protection of civilians in armed conflict.[53] The Peacebuilding Commission has also regularly addressed rule of law issues with respect to countries on its agenda.[54] The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action also requires the rule of law be included in human rights education.[55]

The International Development Law Organization[

edit source]

The International Development Law Organization (IDLO) enables governments and empowers people to reform laws and strengthen institutions to promote peace, justice, sustainable development and economic opportunity. IDLO works along the spectrum from peace and institution-building to economic recovery in countries emerging from conflict and striving towards democracy. It supports emerging economies and middle-income countries to strengthen their legal capacity and rule of law framework for sustainable development and economic opportunity. The International Development Law Organization is the only inter-governmental organization with an exclusive mandate to promote the rule of law, IDLO works to make institutions of law and justice work for people.

International Bar Association[

edit source]

The Council of the 

International Bar Association passed a resolution in 2009 endorsing a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law:[56]

An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal profession; strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client; equality of all before the law; these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. Accordingly, arbitrary arrests; secret trials; indefinite detention without trial; cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; intimidation or corruption in the electoral process, are all unacceptable. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a civilised society. It establishes a transparent process accessible and equal to all. It ensures adherence to principles that both liberate and protect. The IBA calls upon all countries to respect these fundamental principles. It also calls upon its members to speak out in support of the Rule of Law within their respective communities.

World Justice Project[

edit source]

As used by the 

World Justice Project, a non-profit organization committed to advancing the rule of law around the world, the rule of law refers to a rules-based system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:[57]

1. The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law;
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property;
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient;
4. Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

The World Justice Project has developed an Index to measure the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice. The WJP Rule of Law Index is composed of 9 factors and 52 sub-factors, and covers a variety of dimensions of the rule of law —such as whether government officials are accountable under the law, and whether legal institutions protect fundamental rights and allow ordinary people access to justice.

[58]

Albert Dicey[

edit source]

British jurist 

A. V. Dicey popularized the phrase "rule of law" in 1885.[8]^[59] Dicey emphasized three aspects of the rule of law :[60]

1. No one can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law proved in an ordinary court.
2. No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic, or political status.
3. The rule of law includes the results of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons.

Joseph Raz[

edit source]

In 1977, the influential political theorist 

Joseph Raz identified several principles that may be associated with the rule of law in some (but not all) societies.[61] Raz's principles encompass the requirements of guiding the individual's behaviour and minimizing the danger that results from the exercise of discretionary power in an arbitrary fashion, and in this last respect he shares common ground with the constitutional theorists A. V. Dicey, Friedrich Hayek and E. P. Thompson. Some of Raz's principles are as follows:

• That laws should be 

prospective rather than retroactive.

Laws should be stable and not changed too frequently, as lack of awareness of the law prevents one from being guided by it.

There should be clear rules and procedures for making laws.

The 

independence of the judiciary has to be guaranteed.

The 

principles of natural justice should be observed, particularly those concerning the right to a fair hearing.

The courts should have the power of 

judicial review over the way in which the other principles are implemented.

The courts should be accessible; no man may be denied 

justice.

The 

discretion of law enforcement and crime prevention agencies should not be allowed to pervert the law.

According to Raz, the validity of these principles depends upon the particular circumstances of different societies, whereas the rule of law generally "is not to be confused with democracy, justice, equality (before the law or otherwise), human rights of any kind or respect for persons or for the dignity of man".

[61]

In relation to economics[

edit source]

One important aspect of the rule-of-law initiatives is the study and analysis of the rule of law’s impact on economic development. The rule-of-law movement cannot be fully successful in transitional and developing countries without an answer to the question: does the rule of law matter for economic development or not?

[62] Constitutional economics is the study of the compatibility of economic and financial decisions within existing constitutional law frameworks, and such a framework includes government spending on the judiciary, which, in many transitional and developing countries, is completely controlled by the executive. It is useful to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: corruption by the executive branch, in contrast to corruption by private actors.

The standards of constitutional economics can be used during annual 

budget process, and if that budget planning is transparent then the rule of law may benefit. The availability of an effective court system, to be used by the civil society in situations of unfair government spending and executive impoundment of previously authorized appropriations, is a key element for the success of the rule-of-law endeavor.[63]

The Rule of Law is especially important as an influence on the economic development in developing and transitional countries. To date, the term “rule of law” has been used primarily in the English-speaking countries, and it is not yet fully clarified even with regard to such well-established democracies as, for instance, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, or Japan. A common language between lawyers of common law and civil law countries as well as between legal communities of developed and developing countries is critically important for research of links between the rule of law and real economy.

[64]

The modern economist 

F. A. Hayek analyzed how the Rule of Law might be beneficial to the free market. Hayek proposed that under the Rule of Law individuals would be able to make wise investments and future plans with some confidence in a successful return on investment when he stated: "under the Rule of Law the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts."[65] Hayek defined the Rule of Law as the opposite of arbitrary government: "The distinction we have drawn before between the creation of a permanent framework of laws within which the productive activity is guided by individual decisions and the direction of economic activity by a central authority is thus really a particular case of the more general distinction between the Rule of Law and arbitrary government. Under the first the government confines itself to fixing rules determining the conditions under which the available resources may be used, leaving to the individuals the decision for what ends they are to be used. Under the second the government directs the use of the means of production to particular ends. The first type of rules can be made in advance, in the shape of formal rules which do not aim at the wants and needs of particular people. They are intended to be merely instrumental in the pursuit of people's various individual ends. And they are, or ought to be, intended for such long periods that it is impossible to know whether they will assist particular people more than others. They could almost be described as a kind of instrument of production, helping people to predict the behavior of those with whom they must collaborate, rather than as efforts toward the satisfaction of particular needs."[66]

Overview of Injunction Approved , for Wang's Plaintiff .

Wang offers kind words as struggle goes

Injunction   is    a   temporary  continual   exercing   Wang's   right   as   KMT   member  but   not  a  solution   of   his   plaintiff  . 
              KMT's  counterappeal   will   be   a   counter   claim   which  is   a  course  or  action   or  claim   for   relief  asserted  by   a   defendant   against   the   plaintiff  in   a  civil   case  .  
            The    defendant   may  assert   such   a   claim   as    a   counter   claim  
or   hold   it  for  a   separate  action  which   may   be   a   criminal   action   or    civil   action  .
       Ma  ,yesterday  said  that  revoking   Wang's   KMT  membership   is   about   legal  
manner  instead  of   political    struggle   .
      So  ,  It   is   either   political   comspiracy  or  violation  of   Public    Servants,  Law 
which  has   become  an   issue   for   Ma  and  Wang  . 
      Whether   Wang  will  clean   politician   as   a   public         servant   or   against    the   Public   Jaustice  ,  ...................  To   be   continued       

 

The Politicians Corruption and Judiciary Corruption are bursting in Taiwan .

Presidential Office spokesman resigns
            Yes,   that   is  enough   by  a   Professor  says   like  this  :
   Liu   Yi-jun   , a  public    affair   professor   at   Fo  Guang  University   in   Taiwan  ,  says  "People  in  Taiwan  Generally  suapect   the   judiciary   and   elected  officials  .......
" I  think  right   now  the   problems   usually   focus  on    the    elected   officials  ,  "

The  NEWS   FROM   VOA ++++++++

Ralph Jennings

September 12, 2013

TAIPEI — Taiwan is stepping up anti-corruption efforts to improve its image at home and among offshore investors. The government in Taipei has banned bribery, pledged to follow up daily citizen complaints about graft and make it easier for foreign companies to report wrongdoing.

Taiwan, an old manufacturing base and the 26th largest economy, today competes against China, South Korea and Southeast Asia for new investment. But in July, the nongovernmental group Transparency International said perceptions of judicial, legislative and political party graft in Taiwan had exceeded global averages. It said the perceptions also had worsened since 2010.

Taiwan rejects the Berlin-based NGO’s findings as excessive, but officials acknowledge growing public anger about corruption and fear that investors will be deterred. Chu Kung-mao, director-general of the Justice Ministry’s two-year-old Agency Against Corruption, has commissioned a poll for later this month to gauge public opinion on the issue. He says the poll, carried out by Transparency International’s Taipei chapter, is aimed at building confidence in Taiwanese investors who have moved offshore.

He says the main reason is to offer a clean environment and make Taiwanese investors want to return from offshore without worrying that public servants will ask them for money. He says the agency is doing both administrative and substantive work, including letting people know where graft complaints stand, to make the public service climate cleaner. In that way, he adds, businesses local and foreign will want to invest.

Chu’s agency, part of a democratic government that prides itself on a reliable business climate, looks into every complaint from the public. It has reported receiving 5,937 allegations since 2011. On top of those, the agency has launched 2,190 inquiries into corruption practices based on in-house information.

The agency also increasingly warns officials about potential breaches before they happen.

Two years ago the government outlawed bribery, including small transactions such as buying tea for a customs agent. By the end of this year it will meet with multinational firms about graft and give them a special channel to voice any complaints.

Liu Yi-jiun, a public affairs professor at Fo Guang University in Taiwan, says people in Taiwan generally suspect the judiciary and elected officials.

“What I see is that most of the people still have very little confidence in judicial independence. Civil servants, I think they are fine. I think right now the problems usually focus on the elected officials,” says Liu Yi-jiun.

Transparency International found that perceptions of judicial bribery in Taiwan had risen from 12 to 36 percent since 2010, putting Taiwan on a level with Ghana and Mozambique. The NGO’s Global Corruption Barometer also gave low marks to Taiwan’s legislature and political parties.

In a case just this week, Taiwan’s ruling Nationalist Party expelled parliament speaker Wang Jin-pyng over suspicion of influence peddling. But Chu’s agency says the largest share of corruption in Taiwan stems from government procurement, with 164 cases since 2011, and construction contracts with 137. Those cases often involve local officials with small budgets.

  

UN says Syria attack videos fake: Russia

UN says Syria attack videos fake: Russia

British  Government   will   take  part   in   the   US   military    Action  in   Syria   ,  although  the   British  Pailiament  Voted   against  it   last   month  ,in   August .
Britain  has   fourgh  along  side   the   US    in   Afghanistan  ,   Iraq  ,along   with   France   on  the  intervention  in  Libya   in   2011  .  Obama  or    Maccain   has   not   really  known  about   in   Syria   Civil  War  which  cannot   be   limited  in   Military  Strikes  or   Actions  . 
      Would   you  think   about   the   Maccain's  words  :  "   So  I  want  to   begin  by   saying  to   you   that  I  am  unalterably  opposed   to   having  a   singal  American   boot  on   the   ground  in   Syria  "   It  is   only  a  lip   service  or   try   to   make  a   big   Lie  which    is   without   accordence  with   the   Laws  . 
     Mr.  Obama  talks   so   much ,  tells   too   hard  ,   and   speaks  without   perception  or   ability  .You   are  Fire  in  the  International  Community   .  Please  !  drop   your  coercing  power  in   the   international  relationship  .  God   bless   with   you  !  . 

Please  !   Give   Attention   : 
++++++++++++++++++

The US has said it will wait for details of a Russian proposal on Syrian chemical weapons but warned it would not permit "delays and avoidance".

US Secretary of State John Kerry said the plan must be "swift and verifiable" and warned its implementation would be "exceedingly difficult".
Syria has said it accepts the Russian plan to put the chemical weapons under international control.
The US, UK and France will table a UN Security Council resolution later.
France earlier said the resolution would be strong and call for the control and subsequent destruction of the chemical weapons.
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the resolution would threaten "extremely serious" consequences if Syria breached its conditions.
The US alleges that Syrian government forces carried out a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on 21 August, killing 1,429 people.
The Syrian government blames the attack on rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, in a conflict that the UN says has claimed some 100,000 lives.
'Hard look'
Mr Kerry said that if the UN were used as the vehicle for pursuing the Russian plan, it must not become a debating society.

Continue reading the main story

Chapter 7 of UN Charter

• Action in response to threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression
• Article 41 enables Security Council to decide measures not involving armed force
• Can suspend economic and diplomatic relations as well as rail, sea and other communications
• If Article 41 measures are inadequate, Article 42 enables Security Council to take action by air, sea or land forces for international peace and security

Source: UN

He told a hearing of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee the US was waiting for details of the Russian proposal, "but we're not waiting for long".

He said: "President Obama will take a hard look at it. But it has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable.
"We have to show Syria, Russia and the world we are not going to fall for stalling tactics."
Mr Kerry urged Congress to stand by Mr Obama, saying the president was not asking for a declaration of war, simply for the power to show that the US "means what we say".
There have been few details so far of Russia's plan, but Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier in Moscow that it was "preparing a concrete proposal which will be presented to all interested sides, including the US... a workable, specific, concrete plan".
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, who is in Moscow, was quoted by Russian news agency Interfax as saying: "We held a very fruitful round of talks with [Mr Lavrov] yesterday and he proposed an initiative relating to chemical weapons. And in the evening, we agreed to the Russian initiative."
This would "remove the grounds for American aggression", he said.
The US Senate had been expected to vote this week on a resolution authorising military force, but the Russian plan has led to a postponement.

The responsibility of the Military Strike on Syria should be over Barack Obama . .....

Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitates

             All  actions   start  somewhere  . Thay  are  best   controlled   at    the  start  .  If   you  can  block  the   though  that  leads  to   a  Dishonest   ,   you    will  block   the   deed   itself  . (  Norman  Vircent  Peale  . )
            One  of   the   test  of   Leadership  is   the  Ability   to   recoginze   a  problem 
before  it  becomes  an  Emergency  .  (  Arnold  H. Glasgow  ) 
           Why   did  the   US  President   Barack   Obama  delay  on  Military  Strike   by  deciding   to   consult  congress  ? 
           He   did   not  know  the   injury   that   he   has   done   and  the   one  his   Suffering   are   not   weighed   in   the   same   Scale  .
         The   Law-makers  in   the  Congress   of   the   US    who   stand   for   the   Military  Action  will   be   punished  by   American   People  in   the   comming   election  surely  .
         The   Congress   of   the   US  either  stands  for  the  Military  Action  or   against  which     has  no   effect  over   the   Responsibility  because  it  is   only   upon  the  President  of  the   US  .
       Mr.  President  !  Would   you   order   the   Force  of  the   US  to   take   the  Military  Action  on   Syria  ?   God   bless   with  you  !       The  biggest  game  of   the   US   President .

President Obama has taken the biggest gamble of his presidency.

His decision to put off an attack on Syria and seek authorisation from Congress apparently stunned some of his closest advisers.
Secretary of State John Kerry has defended the president's abrupt change of approach, telling NBC: "He didn't think it was worthwhile acting and having the Syrians and a whole bunch of other folks looking at the United States arguing about whether or not it was legitimate, or should he have done it, or should he have moved faster."
But that is precisely what will happen for at least the next 10 days. There's lots of criticism already and a lot of rehashing of how he got to this position.
Only on Friday, the Secretary of State went out on a limb stressing what was at stake for the world and America's reputation. It is hard to imagine that he's best pleased that Assad's punishment has been put on hold.
If Congress votes "No", his words will come back to haunt him and Obama.
That could happen: victory is by no means assured, particularly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Perhaps the Senate isn't safe either - this will be a free vote and there'll be no formal attempt by party leaders to persuade their colleagues.
After receiving a lengthy classified intelligence briefing on Capitol Hill, several senators and congressmen seemed unconvinced.
The draft resolution from the White House calls for authorisation for action to "deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade" Syria's ability to use chemical weapons: two senators - one Republican, one Democrat - called that too open-ended.
Republican Senator John McCain, who has been leading the demand for military intervention in Syria, said that there was "no strategy, no plan" - and both were needed before he'd back the motion.
If Congress doesn't back him, it will be disastrous for the president.
His decision to call for a vote will look foolish and he would be left with an appalling choice.
Ignore the vote and enrage Congress and many Americans. Or don't strike and live with John Kerry's words that America will be weakened, petty dictators emboldened and history's judgement harsh on America's leaders.
So everything hangs on Obama winning the vote. But even if he does, the delay gives Assad more time to prepare for the blow.
The decision has left many commentators questioning his leadership and asking how Obama managed to box himself in.
But to have taken action without the UN, without the UK, without Congress and without the American people's support would have been very uncomfortable for a man who came to office vowing to end America's foreign wars.

President Obama has taken the biggest gamble of his presidency.

His decision to put off an attack on Syria and seek authorisation from Congress apparently stunned some of his closest advisers.
Secretary of State John Kerry has defended the president's abrupt change of approach, telling NBC: "He didn't think it was worthwhile acting and having the Syrians and a whole bunch of other folks looking at the United States arguing about whether or not it was legitimate, or should he have done it, or should he have moved faster."
But that is precisely what will happen for at least the next 10 days. There's lots of criticism already and a lot of rehashing of how he got to this position.
Only on Friday, the Secretary of State went out on a limb stressing what was at stake for the world and America's reputation. It is hard to imagine that he's best pleased that Assad's punishment has been put on hold.
If Congress votes "No", his words will come back to haunt him and Obama.
That could happen: victory is by no means assured, particularly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Perhaps the Senate isn't safe either - this will be a free vote and there'll be no formal attempt by party leaders to persuade their colleagues.
After receiving a lengthy classified intelligence briefing on Capitol Hill, several senators and congressmen seemed unconvinced.
The draft resolution from the White House calls for authorisation for action to "deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade" Syria's ability to use chemical weapons: two senators - one Republican, one Democrat - called that too open-ended.
Republican Senator John McCain, who has been leading the demand for military intervention in Syria, said that there was "no strategy, no plan" - and both were needed before he'd back the motion.
If Congress doesn't back him, it will be disastrous for the president.
His decision to call for a vote will look foolish and he would be left with an appalling choice.
Ignore the vote and enrage Congress and many Americans. Or don't strike and live with John Kerry's words that America will be weakened, petty dictators emboldened and history's judgement harsh on America's leaders.
So everything hangs on Obama winning the vote. But even if he does, the delay gives Assad more time to prepare for the blow.
The decision has left many commentators questioning his leadership and asking how Obama managed to box himself in.
But to have taken action without the UN, without the UK, without Congress and without the American people's support would have been very uncomfortable for a man who came to office vowing to end America's foreign wars.