A few days ago, Citizen Congress Watch held its first legislator evaluation conference, attracting delegates from academia, social groups and the media . Ahead of the conference, there was an explanatory meeting and delegates were given many documents to read. At the conference itself, they compared the overall performance of the legislature’s eight standing committees and the behavior of individual legislators. Discussion was animated but participants adhered strictly to the agenda, with no political manipulation and no predetermined standpoints.
The participants felt the conference had been a good example of deliberative democracy, and that they had done their duty as citizens by keeping an eye on our elected representatives.
However, once the results of the evaluation were announced, some lawmakers who scored poorly reacted strongly, vilifying Citizen Congress Watch and the conference delegates. This reaction was not unexpected. One purpose for the conference was for legislators to learn to deal with public oversight.
If lawmakers can’t accept oversight, do they think it would be alright for government officials to refuse to be scrutinized by the legislature? The legislature would become a more civilized place if lawmakers adjusted their attitude.
It took three months to organize the conference, with academics and experts working out the evaluation criteria, and dozens of volunteers who worked day and night to collect and compile background data. It took thousands of hours of work to prepare for the conference.
Unfortunately the conference workers were so busy that, in working out basic scores for the legislators, they omitted the “legislative reform pledge” signed and faxed in at the last moment by Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅), which affected his score. As soon as the error was discovered, Citizen Congress Watch issued an apology and accepted full responsibility. It also announced that in future it would triple check facts before making any announcement.
Politicians, however, should demand of themselves the same willingness to admit and learn from mistakes, instead of stubbornly denying any wrongdoing.
The experience of this conference has shown that the assessment criteria drawn up by Citizen Congress Watch were more suitable for long-term monitoring, since it is not easy to generate fair scores based on short-term performance. We will need to adjust our criteria and methods so that the people being assessed will be more willing to accept the results.
In Taiwan’s political climate, any public activity that touches on politics runs the risk of being classified as either “blue” or “green,” with nothing in between, instead of being judged objectively. Unless things change, rational discussion in the public domain will remain out of reach.
While humbly accepting the criticisms that have been laid against us, we at Citizen Congress Watch hope our critics will not resort to unfair labeling of the legislature, because without such monitoring the “legislative monster” will become more lawless, and the public the main victims.
Ku Chung-hwa is chairman of Citizen Congress Watch
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
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
RSS