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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry