During his recent visit to Central America, President Chen Shui-bian (
He also called on the legislature to give up its right to topple the Cabinet by a no-confidence vote, and to hold presidential and legislative elections simultaneously every four years, so as to complete the next stage of constitutional reform.
Let us put aside the question of whether it has become standard procedure for Taiwan's leaders to throw out domestic issues during state visits; the above constitutional issues deserve the public's serious discussion.
First of all, we have to review the order of a constitutional amendment. What we should first do is to make clear the nation's constitutional system, clarify the rights and duties of government agencies, decide on major electoral methods and, finally, adjust the number of legislative seats. But this time, our politicians are doing exactly the opposite.
The ruling and opposition camps have decided to first halve the number of the legislative seats and push forward a "single electoral district, two-vote system," leaving discussion of both the president's right to dissolve the legislature and the legislature's power to overthrow the Cabinet for later.
This is just like practicing "kung fu" from the opposite way, as described in many Chinese martial arts novels. Although this may offer a us a chance to open a new path, there is also a significant possibility that we may mess things up and even cause harm. Therefore, if any of the political parties wants to promote certain constitutional reforms, they should make a greater effort to propose complete complementary measures, instead of carrying out impromptu or fragmentary reform projects.
Additionally, these constitutional issues were issued suddenly by the president, revealing that Taiwan's constitutional reform process still has a complex top-down nature.
Both the ruling and opposition camps must stop using populism, so as not to be trapped by their own muddying of the issue. In fact, opinion polls show that as many as 81 percent of Taiwanese admit that they are unfamiliar with the recent constitutional amendments and their consequences.
Our politicians cannot simply portray the complementary measures of the constitutional system as some jam to go with the bread.
Finally, the president's passive power to dissolve the legislature does not really match the legislature's active power to overthrow the Cabinet, compared to most other countries that adopt a "cabinet system."
Legislators have never used their power to overthrow the Cabinet due to uncertainties in facing a by-election.
They'll be more likely to use this veto power in the future, however, as the chances of being re-elected will increase under the new single electoral district system.
Abolishing these two rights at the same time may further expand the government's administrative power.
Moreover, if lawmakers amend the Constitution to extend lawmakers' terms by roughly one year after the December legislative election, they will violate their "contract" with voters and be attacked for self-aggrandizement. In other words, by amending the Constitution to "effect a temporary solution to the headache, rather than a permanent cure," our headache will continue.
Emile Sheng is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Soochow University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US