BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC Progressive Party (DPP) won less than one-fourth of the legislative seats in the Jan. 12 elections, it would be difficult for the party to get any of the 16 legislative committee chairmanships if the posts were filled by voting. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has offered to let the DPP have four of these seats, and DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) has said the party should accept it or it might not be able to propose laws in future.
It would of course be a problem if the DPP were unable to file important law proposals independently. Nonetheless, I propose that the offer be declined. Even with four committee chairpersons, the laws the DPP can propose would be limited. Furthermore, even with a DPP member at the helm, the party's committee members will still be a minority, making it virtually impossible for any bill to be passed in accord with DPP wishes.
Instead, the DPP should use this opportunity to demand legislative reform. Each legislative committee used to have three chairpersons. Although this number has been reduced to two, it is still high compared with other democracies. This strange structure is a remnant of the authoritarian period.
Intent on dominating and reducing the legislature's power, dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) adopted many unusual measures, including appointing three chairpersons for each legislative committee. Most countries have only one chairperson, normally a senior lawmaker, to strengthen the legislature and create an effective counterweight to the executive.
Chiang chose three chairpersons per committee to divide the spoils of power in line with his "divide and conquer" policy. He also instituted a rule requiring members to move to a different committee every legislative session, which ensured that everyone could sit on the more popular committees and that members never became specialists.
This spirit of sharing the spoils of power can also be seen in the interpellation system. The interpellation is meant to be a political discussion between the opposition and the Cabinet. But in Taiwan, both opposition and ruling party legislators take turns asking questions mostly intended to impress their constituents. This system made things easy for the Cabinet and legislators, but it weakened the legislature's status and effectiveness.
With democratization, it should be possible to cast off this old system. New legislators should make it clear that they are not just a new set of squabbling legislative "monsters" and should use this opportunity for reform. Ma is using the old spoils-sharing system to co-opt smaller parties by creating an image of generosity and the small parties, unfortunately, are happily biting.
To change this system, Taiwan should adopt the standard system with one chairperson and one vice chairperson instead of two or three chairpersons per committee. Having a single committee head is necessary to establish legislative accountability and effectively counterbalance the government's power. The system of rotating legislators between committees should also be changed. Instead of sitting on a different committee every year, legislators should stay in one committee for an entire legislative term.
The interpellation should be reinstated as a political discussion between the opposition and the government. I hope the new legislature will make this effort to address public doubts about the new legislature. Having suffered a serious blow to its prestige, the DPP should take up this appeal and stop perpetuating the old spoils-sharing system.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY ANNA STIGGELBOUT
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with