According to media reports, many legislators from the pan-blue and pan-green camps hope to increase the number of legislative seats from 113 to 164 and change the central government system into a Cabinet system. Rumor has it that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is on his guard against KMT legislators who want to amend the Constitution again, and may expel those who sign the proposal from the party. It is also said that the number of lawmakers who support the proposal exceeds the number required for pushing through a constitutional amendment.
A few issues require clarification. First is the number of lawmakers. The number 113, arrived at by the rough-hewn idea of halving the 225 seats valid up until and including the sitting legislature, is indeed problematic. This does not, however, mean that 164 is the perfect number.
If lawmakers are suggesting an increase in the number of seats simply because it will be more difficult for them to be elected under the new single-member district system, then the proposal only serves to highlight the legitimacy of having a smaller legislature.
The number of lawmakers should be decided in accordance with two factors: how many voters each lawmaker should represent, and how many seats the legislature should have. For a country of 23 million people, a legislature with more than 1,000 seats would be sufficiently representative, but it might be inefficient. A legislature with only 50 seats may be efficient, but it would obviously not be sufficiently representative. So exactly how many seats offer the best representation and efficiency?
There is another problem with the new single-member district, two-vote system which will be implemented starting with next year's legislative elections: What should the ratio be between directly-elected legislators and legislators-at-large? One-to-one, two-to-one or three-to-one? Fewer legislators-at-large mean less party control and reduced unity, but increased individual and local influence. More legislators-at-large will have the opposite effect.
In other words, if legislators-at-large are weak in the legislature, then the ideal of a "unified Taiwan" is unlikely to be realized, as the legislature will be kidnapped by local and individual interests. On the contrary, if the number of legislators-at-large matches that of regional legislators, or if, as in Germany, for example, directly elected legislators can also be listed as candidates on the list for legislators-at-large and thus win a seat as a legislator-at-large even if they lose the direct election, then the arrogance of directly elected legislators -- "I am backed by so many voters, so what do you want?" -- might be kept in check.
As for a Cabinet system, it would integrate the legislative and executive powers. If the lawmakers from both camps propose the adoption of this system to both expand their legislative power and get their hands on executive power, it will only further strengthen the public's belief that politics is a dark and dirty undertaking.
A Cabinet system is not like this. The integration of legislative and administrative powers does not mean that lawmakers can serve concurrently as premier, minister or political vice minister. Rather, it means that key officials should be lawmakers. In other words, untalented, unprofessional and incompetent lawmakers should not serve in key posts, but talented and professional politicians capable of taking on important posts should serve as lawmakers.
To ensure a high-quality legislature, people's second vote under the two-vote system is significant. This kind of system for legislators-at-large will not result in these legislators becoming second-class legislators, but rather allow them to become heavyweight lawmakers. Only then will a Cabinet system be possible.
Since many lawmakers from both camps are proposing a constitutional amendment to build a Cabinet system, instead of blocking the proposal, perhaps the KMT should "follow good advice as a river follows its natural course," as the Chinese saying goes. If a change is to be made, it must be made thoroughly. First, do not stipulate the number of lawmakers in the Constitution. Second, apply a one-on-one ratio between legislators-at-large and directly elected legislators. Third, list all shadow Cabinet members, including the premier, as candidates on the list for legislators-at-large seats. This means that key officials would be lawmakers, and not the other way round.
The last question, which might also be the blind spot for KMT headquarters or for Ma's own team: If these changes are made, who would want to run for president? The answer is: Do not worry. Anyone is a suitable candidate, because no matter who is elected president, he or she will be a leader in name only while enjoying the public's love and support. Such a leader will not, cannot and should not do anything. Anyone who desires to devote themselves to the country should strive to be listed as candidate for legislator-at-large seats and go on to become premier. Didn't former president Chiang Ching-kuo (
Max Sun is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under