An article in Foreign Policy recently included Taiwan’s legislature in a list of the world’s most incompetent legislatures. Lawyer C.V. Chen (陳長文) responded by publishing an article in a Chinese-language newspaper earlier this month calling for reform of the electoral system in the hope that that would improve the legislature’s abilities.
If we’re looking to legislative incompetence, the electoral system is just the tip of the iceberg. The main problem is arguably the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s manipulation and abuse of the legislature. Let’s review some of the more miserable cases of the past.
Before Taiwan and China signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) last year, the public questioned the agreement and the opposition remained skeptical. According to Article 6 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), this kind of agreement should be sent to the legislature for deliberation.
In addition, Article 43 of the Constitution states that a treaty or a significant national event must be presented to the legislature for confirmation.
However, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that the legislature could discuss the ECFA, but could not change it.
Surprisingly, Ma justified his conclusion by citing the Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 329, which states: “Agreements concluded between Taiwan and mainland China are not international agreements to which this interpretation relates. It should also be noted that whether or not these agreements should be sent to the Legislation [sic] Yuan for deliberation is not included in this interpretation.”
In fact, it was the principle of the separation of constitutional powers that led the grand justices not to offer a judicial interpretation on the issue of highly political cross-strait agreements.
After Ma’s statement, the legislature submitted the ECFA to a second reading without first allowing the related committees to review the agreement. It was then passed in a matter of minutes, leaving no room for discussion.
That was the moment the soul of Taiwan’s legislature died.
Going back a little further, the KMT was in hysterics after losing the presidency in 2000. Intransigent KMT legislators then for three years refused to exercise their power of consent to approve certain Control Yuan member nominees. That was followed by a another constitutional interpretation by the grand justices, No. 632, which stated: “The Constitution does not allow for the event in which either the President or the Legislative Yuan fails to nominate or consent to the nomination of candidates so that the Control Yuan cannot exercise its power or function, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the constitutional system.”
In the end, the problem was solved when the KMT regained power in 2008 and nominated its own Control Yuan members, allowing the Control Yuan to resume its functions.
There are too many examples to even remember, including the US arms procurements that the KMT used to block, but now supports.
If we look at the legislatures in most democracies, they at least abide by the rules of the game and procedural justice despite fierce struggles among parties and lawmakers. They still respect the legislative minority and engage in negotiations, and they communicate, and compromise.
These qualities no longer exist in Taiwan’s legislature. Whose fault is that?
Chen Rong-jye is a legal scholar.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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
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
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS