Taiwan is a democracy, and the basic principles underlying democracy are the separation of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and the mutual checks and balances thereof. Of these three, it is the checks and balances of the first two, the executive and legislative branches of government, that are the most crucial. This is because they are instrumental in making sure government policy reflects public opinion, and in preventing it from going off in its own direction unchallenged.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been in power for two years, and he has doubled as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman since last October. Over the past two years, the power of the legislature has been curbed to the extent that it is losing its ability to effectively keep the government in check or participate in policymaking.
This is cause for much concern. In the recent controversy over US beef imports, the legislature asserted itself, giving the impression it was fulfilling its sentry role, but this was in the face of overwhelming public protest. When it comes to cross-strait policy, however, KMT lawmakers simply let everything pass unchallenged, disdainful even of the legislature’s somewhat reduced role as a rubber-stamp to the government’s whim. This is a serious distortion of the democratic deliberation process that removes a democratic defense line.
Ma expects to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China next month. He has given his assurances that it will be subject to the legislative review mechanism, but previous form leads one to suspect this is to be but a token gesture. This not only foreshadows the lack of legitimacy of the agreement, it also risks dealing a serious blow to the sense of trust required for the proper functioning of the democratic rule of law.
The distinction between the concepts of legitimacy and legality has been discussed ever since German sociologist Max Weber posed the question many years ago. Framed by the situation at hand, it may be possible to claim that Article 5 of the Act Governing the Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例) applies, strictly speaking, to cross-strait agreements and the ECFA, when it states that where “content does not require any amendment to laws or any new legislation, the administration authorities of the agreement shall submit the agreement to ... the Legislative Yuan for record.”
However, at this moment in time, when the government is pushing a particularly pro-China policy, the “legality” appealed to here finds itself in conflict with “legitimacy.” This explains the consistently high level of support among the public for a referendum on the ECFA: If representative democracy falls short of its duty of oversight, the people have little choice but to appeal to direct democracy in a concrete manifestation of “people power.”
The legislature is supposed to protect and preserve democracy, and as such it must scrutinize any policy that could potentially harm national sovereignty or dignity, or indeed the welfare of the public. Furthermore, legislators belonging to the ruling party should not toe the party line as a matter of course, for if they do, they cannot be representing the very electorate that put them where they are.
In addition, many strategists are of the opinion that the will of the populace, as represented by the legislature, is a powerful bargaining chip at the negotiating table. It would therefore be better if the government were to explain to the public what is actually going on, rather than just concentrating on the benefits of an ECFA.
After all, democracy can be a powerful resource in securing the maximum benefit in negotiations with China, as long as the government exploits the full potential of the legislature.
Ku Chung-hwa is chairman of Citizens’ Congress Watch.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS