Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: An assembly with a mission

A copy editor asks: "Why is this National Assembly so often referred to as the `mission oriented' National Assembly?"

The short answer to this question is that in the past the assembly convened once a year whether it had anything on its agenda or not -- and it usually didn't. Its purpose seemed to be to allow a lot of old politicians, many of whom lived in the US, to enjoy an all expenses paid trip back to Taiwan, where they were paid handsomely for listening to a report or two. They usually managed to make this activity last a month. So what makes this assembly "mission oriented" is that it has been convened expressly to accomplish a particular task.

That doesn't mean that previous assemblies didn't accomplish anything. They were super efficient at voting all kinds of perks and pay raises for themselves, to such an extent that the usual adjectival phrase that accompanied the institution's name was "self-fattening." Then there was the "10,000 Year Assembly" which was elected in China in 1948 and sat in Taiwan until 1992, and whose members were known as the "old thieves." They were eventually replaced by a locally elected body so rapacious its members were known as the "young thieves."

All of this goes to explain quite adequately why the assembly that will convene on Monday is also being called the "functional" National Assembly. Others were totally dysfunctional, at least in terms of fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities -- cash cows though they were for their delegates.

This little look at history should explain to the uninitiated just why this country is in such a hurry to get rid of its second chamber. It is almost fitting that the last days of the assembly's existence should be marred by controversy. And it is typical of the current situation in this country that the controversy revolves around a flip-flop by the ruling party, and a veteran democracy activist who doesn't seem to understand the way democracies sometimes work.

There is little point in reiterating former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung's (林義雄) condemnation of the 75 percent threshold for the assembly's passage of reform measures. Let us simply remind Lin that the assembly has always required some form of supermajority to get measures passed, and this was of great use to the DPP when it was in opposition, preventing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- which invariably won over 60 percent of the seats -- from adjusting the Constitution for its own benefit.

It was suggested in the mid-1990s, for example, that the president should have to be elected with a clear majority, necessitating a run off if there were more than two candidates. Such a measure would probably have prevented Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) becoming president in 2000. The change was not adopted because the DPP could see that it was obviously to its detriment, and it had just enough votes in the assembly to block it.

Lin argues that supermajorities are undemocratic. But their point is that they force different sides to negotiate and reach a consensus acceptable to all on very delicate issues. That is not a bad thing.

Since this is the last National Assembly, such arguments are almost moot. But it is hard not to ponder whether more intelligent constitutional reform could have refashioned the assembly in a useful way, rather than simply abolishing it.

There is a crying need for a reduction in ethnic strife and some thought might have been given to creating a body in which representatives of the four main groups could sit in numerical parity -- someone will complain that this is not democratic, but then, in the same sense, neither is the US Senate -- as a monitor of legislation and an arbiter of disputes. Surely something more is needed than the Legislative Yuan.
This story has been viewed 1953 times.