Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: Reform is not an election gimmick

Ruling and opposition party legislative caucuses finally reached a consensus on Wednesday to halve the number of legislative seats. For the first time, the Legislative Yuan is initiating a constitutional amendment, which, if successful, would be the nation's seventh constitutional amendment. This is indeed a great step forward for politics in this country. Although legislators were reluctant to support a reform which will cost many of them their jobs, election pressures left them no choice but to sign.

Downsizing the legislature and implementing a single-member district, double-ballot system are both measures that are long overdue. The number of legislative seats will be cut from 225 to 113, 34 of which will be held by legislators-at-large. The number of female or male lawmakers will be required to be at least 30 percent of the total. These measure will also help improve the quality of lawmakers, since those marginal legislators who have specialized in eccentric measures to attract the support of a mere 5 percent or 10 percent of voters in an electoral district will not be re-elected. This will also consolidate and deepen party politics and greatly improve the nation's political culture.

Two important questions, however, remain.

First, are the parties really serious about passing this constitutional amendment? Will they pass it before the presidential election or will it be put aside until after the election? Government and opposition finally agreed to the reform plan, but their political concerns are all too obvious. Aside from responding to advocates of legislative reform, the rush to pass the proposal before polling day also stems from the parties' electoral concerns.

Viewing legislative reform as its main battlefield, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) demanded an extraordinary legislative session next week to deal with the proposal. To avoid being attacked over the legislative reform issue, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party rushed to sign the document and emphasize that they supported the guaranteed quota for women. The Taiwan Solidarity Union made a U-turn to support the single-member district system. Will their promises remain valid after pressure is removed?

Second, is this the proper process for a constitutional amendment? Will the mere promotion of legislative election reform achieve the goal of a thorough reform of the government? A review of the process on Wednesday indicates that all involved were hasty and slipshod, but any effort to amend the Constitution should be carried out according to the strictest standards.

According to the spirit of Council of Grand Justices Interpretation No. 499, a review committee should call a public hearing to hear public and scholarly opinions on a constitutional amendment, allow the legislators proposing the amendment to explain their reasoning and proceed from a general debate to debating each article in order to give the issue thorough treatment. These steps are missing.

The parties have either overlooked or put aside accompanying issues that also require legislation such as whether the right to unseat the Cabinet and dissolve the legislature should remain once legislators' terms have been extended to the same length as the presidential term. Rushing legislative reform prior to the presidential election will create constitutionally-related problems, and this is not good from a long-term legal perspective.

Legislative reform should be initiated as soon as possible, but the constitutional amendment process requires great care and continuity. The piecemeal approach of previous amendments must not be repeated, or it would be better to write a new constitution in 2006. The people are monitoring the ability of all the parties to deliver on their legislative reform promise.
This story has been viewed 2083 times.