The ongoing battle over proposed revisions to the Organic Law of the Central Election Commission (CEC,
It is understandable that people would be concerned about how members of the CEC, the nation's nominally independent election oversight body, are selected. For a democracy to function, it is necessary for elections to be as reliable and transparent as possible.
This means that the organization must avoid any appearance of partisanship in order to engender public trust in the institution and thereby trust in the outcome of elections in general.
The current system for selecting CEC members is indeed flawed, as it places too much power in the hands of the executive branch. Members are nominated by the premier and appointed by the president.
This gives the ruling party -- whichever party that may be -- complete control over the CEC, a situation which is unsatisfactory and is an anachronism left over from the days of one-party, authoritarian rule.
Now, the KMT has never been happy about the fact that it is not still that one-party, authoritarian ruler of Taiwan. So it has been determined to rewrite the rules that kept it in power for so long, erasing loop-holes until the political system turns out in such a way that the KMT can regain power and keep it for eternity.
Part of this process is to take control of the CEC by institutionalizing partisanship.
Under the KMT's most recent proposal, CEC members would be divided into two categories, with 12 of the commission's members being drawn from lists presented by registered political parties and five being non-party members.
For the first category, the premier will select half from a list of 12 candidates provided by the KMT and the People First Party and half from a list of 12 recommended by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan Solidarity Union.
The premier would then choose two of the five "non-party" members from a list of four representatives recommended by the pan-blue camp, another two from the pan-green camp's list of four and one from a list of two candidates provided by the Non-Partisan Solidarity Union.
All 17 appointments would have to be confirmed by the legislature.
This amendment is flawed, as it would entrench the existing legislative makeup -- read KMT majority -- as the basis for the composition of the CEC.
Nevertheless, the system does need to change, but what is required is far more radical -- and much more simple.
In short, CEC members should be appointed by the executive -- in this case, the premier -- and approved by a simple majority in the legislature.
That's it. No complicated formulas about which party gets to do what. Just a basic balance of power between the legislature and the executive.
That is all that is needed to keep things honest at the CEC. The executive and the legislature should be forced by law to find suitable compromises -- that's the whole point of the system in the first place. But the KMT wants parties, not laws, to control the fate of this country.
So which is better: Party control, or rule by law?
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS