After what seems to have been a laborious process, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has finally released its list for legislator-at-large nominations, and yet the choice of candidates indicate that the KMT had to compromise in order to settle conflicts in electoral districts.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will also have to produce a list of candidates soon. This is all evidence that the position of legislators-at-large and their constitutional role have long been ignored, and a problem that political parties should address while choosing their candidates.
In order to strictly monitor whether the DPP's legislators-at-large are working to implement its agenda, the party drew up a set of guidelines for legislators-at-large. The DPP also amended its nomination regulations, stipulating that any legislator-at-large nominees violating the party's will should immediately be disqualified. This shows that the legislator-at-large function has had to yield to party interests.
The parties have not tried to keep a low profile as they revamp the legislators-at-large role, which is a reflection of the general view among the parties that these positions are simply a party tool.
On Dec. 30, 1993, the Council of Grand Justices issued an interpretation of Article 49, Paragraph 2, of the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) which states: "To those elected pro rata based upon the votes won by each political party, the provisions governing recall procedure are not applicable" on whether that exclusion is in conflict with the Constitution and thus null and void.
The grand justices determined that the constitutional role of legislator-at-large "is to ensure that a certain portion of congressmen, while they are exercising the power conferred, do not yield to the will of regional voters in particular precincts, so that they may learn the genuine will of the people as a whole and preserve national interests; in addition, said articles also are meant to prompt political parties to nominate the most talented, virtuous and reputable members to be said congressmen ? so that such congressmen may serve their country."
The interpretation expounded the rationale of legislators-at-large, which is to "learn the genuine will of the people as a whole and preserve national interests," rather than to learn the party's will and preserve its interests.
The legislator-at-large post has its origins in the spirit of proportional representation. The concept was devised by French socialist Victor Prosper Considerant in 1892. He said the proportional representation system conforms better to the public's will and could correct the injustice of sacrificing the opinion of minority groups which occurs in majority representation systems.
The key spirit of party proportional representation through legislators-at-large is to stand on the side of minorities and disadvantaged groups and allow popular rule rather than party rule, replacing the majority rule emphasized in majority representation systems.
Strangely, while placing so much importance on the implementation of party will, the value of doing so is immediately denigrated if it goes counter to the party's own interests. For example, the DPP was strongly opposed to proportional representation in the Referendum Review Committee (RRC) and the National Communications Commission (NCC), which are both composed according to the proportion of each party's representation in the legislature.
The reason for the DPP's opposition was described by Cabinet Spokesman Shieh Jhy-wey (謝志偉) when he said that the RRC was composed according to each party's proportional representation, and thus represents the party's position. The Cabinet also said that proportional representation in the NCC would turn it into yet another political battlefield.
In other words, the DPP opposes letting the party's will suppress the general will of the people, but when it comes to the nomination of legislator-at-large candidates, it relies on the party will to violate the idea that it should "learn the genuine will of the people as a whole."
Nearly all of Taiwan's political parties are alike in trying to build a "party-state" by highlighting their definition of the legislator-at-large function. Yet this is different from Germany, which, tries to advance party status, while strictly regulating the notion of the "party-state." Taiwan's parties only choose to follow the former and ignore the latter.
Unless this selective interpretation is changed, the political parties would not be able to move democracy forward, but are instead likely to become another source of conflict.
Eugene Yen is a part-time assistant professor in the School of Liberal Education at Shih Chen University.
Translated by Ted Yang
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