The legislative election early last year was the first to be held using the new single-district, double ballot election system. In addition, the number of legislators was cut by half. Everyone hoped the legislators elected under the new system would be the most outstanding candidates in each constituency, and that the changes would result in a new and better legislature.
A year later, however, we have to say that we are bitterly disappointed, because legislative performance during last year’s two sessions was largely devoid of merit. It has made no substantial difference. Worse, democracy is on the retreat. Citizen Congress Watch conducted a poll to choose the one word people think best describes legislative performance over the past year. The lucky winner was “black” — an indication of public anger and dissatisfaction.
Let us consider some recent issues on which the legislature has given a poor performance. There is the case of Legislator Diane Lee’s (李慶安) alleged dual citizenship. The ruling KMT, with its overwhelming majority, has been unwilling to deal with the case in a forthright manner, exposing its irresponsibility and lack of principle. Lee has now resigned from the KMT but, according to the terms of the Nationality Act (國籍法), the legislature should turn the case over to judicial authorities for investigation and possible trial. Instead, its procrastination confirms the public’s impression of legislators’ wanton disregard for the law. As a result, public esteem for the legislature has sunk to a new low. If Lee really has been breaking the law for 14 years, she will fully deserve the title of “black-hearted legislator.”
Another reason it hard for the public to trust the legislature is the way the body has failed to properly review the government’s budget for the coming year, which it passed almost untouched. This only strengthens the public’s impression that legislators’ decisions are governed solely according to which side of the political divide they stand on, not the rights and wrongs of the matter at hand. It seems that all efforts to make the legislature more professional have been in vain.
Even more outrageous is the fact that the four cross-strait agreements reached at talks between Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) automatically came into effect only a short time after ARATS chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) left Taiwan, without the legislature — Taiwan’s highest representative body — having any say on the agreements at all. If things continue like this, the legislature might as well close its doors.
Taiwan’s parliamentary procedure still lacks transparency, allowing lawmakers to play backroom politics. We hope that the legislative procedure publicity committee proposed by Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) quickly finishes setting up a video-on-demand system accessible through the Internet so that people can see for themselves how things are done in the legislature.
A legislature veiled in obscurity is not what the electorate thought they were voting for. Some legislators have appealed to the public not to “blacken the name” of their institution, but civic groups would not provoke the legislature if it weren’t for the fact that time after time another incident crops up to show that it is not doing a proper job.
Let’s hope that in the new year the legislature will get its act together and stop acting like a rubber stamp, turning out bills that run contrary to the wishes of the public. Let’s hope a beam of sunlight will shine into the dark corridors of the legislature so it is “black” no more.
Ku Chung-hwa is chairman of Citizen Congress Watch.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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