The rate of public satisfaction with legislators is low, and reducing the number of seats in the legislature by half has become the consensus of the people. On Jan. 14, key staff from the Northern Taiwan Society, the Central Tai-wan Society, the Southern Taiwan Society, the Eastern Taiwan Society and the PEN Taiwan visited the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) headquarters, requesting that the KMT sign a commitment to halve the legislature, complete legislative negotiations on the issue and announce a concrete agreement by March 15.
The KMT only sent a low-level official, Wang Tan-ping (汪誕平), the head of its policy research department, to receive us. Wang said that halving the legislature involves constitutional amendments and should not be done recklessly without complete planning. He refused to sign our appeal. But we were unwilling to give up on our mission, and sent the appeal to both presidential candidates by registered mail.
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) signed the commitment before the deadline we proposed, but KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) has not yet responded. In the presidential debate on Feb. 21, Lien merely said that the issue involves other complementary measures, and that "it's necessary to propose concrete plans regarding legislators elected from the nationwide constituency, and the division of electoral districts." But he was unwilling to make a sincere response to any of these "concrete plans."
Thus, we can be sure that the blue camp's announcement to halve the legislature was merely a smokescreen to mask issues such as the legislature's right to approve the premier , a seniority system, the establishment of legislative professionalism, the redrawing of electoral districts that have been adopted to block the halving of the legislature. In light of this development, let us examine the blue camp's various excuses for blocking legislative reforms over the past three years.
In July 2001, the People First Party (PFP) and the New Party legislative caucuses said that "the number of legislators is not absolutely related to the chaos in the legislature, and that it's necessary to amend the legislative regulations to rebuild legislative order at the same time" in order to block legislative downsizing.
In April 2002, then KMT legislative caucus whip Lin Yi-shih (林益世) said that "reducing or halving the legislative seats is not very urgent, and that it's OK if a proposal is made before the election." He also said that "legislative reform involves the redrawing of electoral districts and reorganization of legislative committees," so as to block the proposal through these related issues.
Then PFP legislative caucus whip Diane Lee (李慶安) said that "it's necessary to adjust the portion of legislators elected from the nationwide constituency, clarify the position of the national security system and the conflict over whether the president has to brief the legislature regarding national security issues."
If halving the legislature is linked to countless other reform issues, it might take several decades for the issue to be resolved.
Last March, in response to a proposal to downsize the legislature, PFP legislative caucus deputy whip Chin Hui-chu (秦慧珠) said, "there are many urgent bills that need to be reviewed, and it's not urgent to handle this proposal since the legislative election is still two years away."
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) later said that it was very difficult to reach a consensus on a constitutional amendment about the number of legislative seats, making it impossible to reduce the seats by the end of the year due to the pan-blue camp's obstruction.
From 2001 to last year, the blue camp was unwilling to halve the legislature, and its proposal to cut the legislative seats from 225 to 113 was a blatant lie used to attract votes.
In response to former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung's (林義雄) demand for legislative reform, Lien said in late December that "since there's already a consensus to cut the legislative seats to 113, it should be carried out right away without further delay."
Why, then, has Lien delayed in accomplishing this, and refused to sign a commitment saying that the reform is urgent?
Due to restrictions on amending the Constitution, the Legislative Yuan can only submit an amendment "upon the proposal of one-fourth of all legislators and by a resolution of three-fourths of the members present at a meeting with a quorum of three-fourths of all legislators." Thus the reform project may be stopped forever by a handful of people.
To be honest, the goal of downsizing the legislature can only succeed by using the opportunity of the presidential election. If voters lose this bargaining chip, no matter who becomes president on March 20, it will be impossible for him to demand selfish legislators cut the number of seats. We can say that after March 20, the legislature will not be halved within the next four-year term. In the 2008 presidential election, if parties or candidates boycott the proposal again, downsizing the legislature will again be a hopeless cause.
We hereby sincerely appeal to the public to wake up:
First, the legislature should make the issue of halving the legislature its priority during legislative review. Other issues that are not directly related to it should all be considered minor. Those who violate this principle should be treated as traitors and be condemned by all.
Second, the pan-blue camp should integrate its opinions immediately. It should also send authorized representatives to negotiate with the pan-green camp on concrete plans.
Three, both camps should hold a press briefing every day to report their progress, in order to ensure the success of the issue.
Italy was known to the world as "the home of gangsters" before it reduced the number of its parliamentary seats and carried out the "single-member district, two-vote system." But it has gradually cleaned up its act following its legislative reforms.
Where Taiwan will head depends on whether the downsizing proposal is agreed upon before March 20. We hope that the people can show their concern over this.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers