In the wake of an incident in which Department of Health Minister Yeh Ching-chuan (葉金川) was grabbed by the neck in a scuffle between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, lawmakers proposed a bill that would have public opinion polls determine bonuses for ministers. If the bill passes the legislature, ministers with low ratings would likely not receive a bonus.
The KMT may nominally have gained total power, but this development illustrates how the relationship between the legislative and the executive remains unstable.
The Constitution states that the legislature’s primary responsibility is to supervise the executive. In representative democracies, lawmakers are elected to monitor government performance, making this an inherent duty of the legislature. If a minister’s political performance does not satisfy public demands, legislators can respond using their powers.
Public opinion polls can, of course, be used as a reference, but in an increasingly complicated modern society, excessive reliance on polls invites inaccuracy and is shortsighted. Doing so would return supervisory responsibilities to the public who voted the lawmakers in to perform this duty in the first place.
If ministerial political performance can be punished or rewarded through opinion polls, why should the public waste time electing lawmakers?
We must not forget that legislators are also public servants, employed by the public in another way to supervise the public servants in the executive.
The problem with polling assessments is that the public could turn on the legislature and find that it is not performing any better than the Cabinet.
If the executive can be evaluated in this way, with the media and lawmakers demanding that ministers’ salaries be cut or that they be replaced altogether, then what about the legislators?
After the Democratic Progressive Party took power in 2000, the legislative and the executive were in direct opposition — yet this continues today.
On TV, we see how lawmakers fiercely criticize ministers if they raise their voice even slightly during a question-and-answer session — even though lawmakers can use the most violent language with impunity.
For example, a minister who has a US green card is severely criticized, while lawmakers with possible dual citizenship are not properly investigated.
Similarly, Yeh could only quietly go to the hospital after the neck-grabbing incident as legislators refused to apologize for the attack. Ministers don’t dare hit back.
The Cabinet and the legislature should supervise each other. Today, however, the executive doesn’t do much in this regard and ministers restrain themselves as the legislature acts arrogantly.
This strange phenomenon makes one feel that the KMT isn’t in complete control but rather divided into an “executive KMT” and a “legislative KMT.”
The legislative party threatens the executive party with public opinion, hoping to use opinion polls to cut back salaries for ministers who supposedly shirk responsibilities.
At the same time, these lawmakers have declared Citizen Congress Watch — a non-partisan civic oversight group — persona non grata because it is perceived as a threat to their activities.
It is clearly acceptable for legislators to supervise others, but not for others to supervise legislators.
If the “legislative KMT” is not brought to heel, things will soon get out of hand.
Chiang Ya-chi is a doctoral student in the School of Law at the University of Leeds.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Heavy rains over the past week have overwhelmed southern and central Taiwan, with flooding, landslides, road closures, damage to property and the evacuations of thousands of people. Schools and offices were closed in some areas due to the deluge throughout the week. The heavy downpours brought by the southwest monsoon are a second blow to a region still recovering from last month’s Typhoon Danas. Strong winds and significant rain from the storm inflicted more than NT$2.6 billion (US$86.6 million) in agricultural losses, and damaged more than 23,000 roofs and a record high of nearly 2,500 utility poles, causing power outages. As
The greatest pressure Taiwan has faced in negotiations stems from its continuously growing trade surplus with the US. Taiwan’s trade surplus with the US reached an unprecedented high last year, surging by 54.6 percent from the previous year and placing it among the top six countries with which the US has a trade deficit. The figures became Washington’s primary reason for adopting its firm stance and demanding substantial concessions from Taipei, which put Taiwan at somewhat of a disadvantage at the negotiating table. Taiwan’s most crucial bargaining chip is undoubtedly its key position in the global semiconductor supply chain, which led
RSS