On Wednesday, the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Central Standing Committee passed a two-phase proposal for legislative reform.
The first stage consists of four parts: strengthening the committee seniority system to avoid party negotiations overriding committee expertise; establishing a system allowing the legislature to launch investigations and hold public hearings so it can efficiently oversee the executive branch; setting up clear and unambiguous rules to avoid conflict of interest; and making the Procedure Committee a neutral and transparent institution.
The second stage consists of amending the legislative electoral system to address the representative imbalance between districts (for example, the lone legislator from Matsu represents a population of 9,000, while a legislator from Taiwan proper represents an average of 300,000 people) and the problem of legislators only paying attention to issues related to their own electoral districts instead of taking a wider perspective.
The DPP’s passage of this proposal has ratcheted up the call for democratic reform via the upcoming elections.
The quality of legislative deliberation in Taiwan has been heavily criticized, with the legislature being branded one of the worst in the democratic world. Not only has this brought shame to the country, but the poor state of the legislature has also damaged the rights of the public and prevented the nation’s competitiveness from improving.
While there are many reasons why the legislature has reached this state, the key problems are a weak systemic foundation and the lack of support for constructive systemic development.
The weak systemic foundation stems from the rule of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), who, in order to block the legislature from acting as an effective counterbalance to the executive branch, introduced a system that was different from other nations.
One example is the spoils-sharing system, with each legislative committee having three conveners to allow the Chiangs to divide and conquer. Another is the semi-annual shake up of conveners and legislators on the different committees to suppress the level of specialization and prevent the public hearings and investigations necessary to maintain the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.
To retain its control over the legislature, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has worked hard to maintain these systemic shortcomings despite the fact that the whole legislature is now elected. Although academics and reform-minded legislators have repeatedly pushed for change, progress has been very difficult.
The lack of support for constructive systemic development can be seen in the unique, legally regulated system of closed-door negotiations between the government and the opposition which was established in 1999 — and which has only served to thoroughly destroy the spirit of specialized inquiry.
Apart from these, halving the number of legislative seats has thoroughly destroyed the democratic principle that every vote should have the same value.
Since the KMT’s control of the legislature has not only blocked reform, but also created a whole new set of systemic irregularities, the DPP has seized the right moment to push for legislative reform at a time when even Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) of the KMT says his party might have lost the chance to retain its legislative majority.
Given the public’s disgust with the legislature, the DPP’s call for legislative reform is very timely. DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has introduced her political views in the party’s 10-year guidelines and if DPP legislators push the call for legislative reform, they could launch a two-pronged strategy to take the edge off the KMT’s strategic combination of two elections in one day.
The calls for legislative reform are also a timely reminder about of the emphasis placed on the legislator-at-large lists. Legislative reform will have to overcome the obstacles posed by vested interests and this requires strong leadership. Looking at it from this perspective, both the DPP and the KMT should re-evaluate the significance of their legislator-at-large lists.
The KMT has emulated the DPP in nominating several representatives of disadvantaged groups and legislators who “don’t do as they’re told,” such as Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) and Tseng Chu-wei (曾巨威).
Its list might look good, but it raises three questions.
If the KMT wants reform, then why does Minister of Finance Lee Sush-der (李述德), who has been so severely criticized by Yaung and Tseng, remain in his job, instead of letting Tseng replace him? How should the public interpret this? Are they double dealing by keeping Lee for policymaking, while using Yaung and Tseng to tidy up the party’s image?
Letting Tseng and Yaung into the legislature without being willing to change the current approach of using it as the government’s private legislative office is in fact the same as depriving the duo of their supervisory tools. Isn’t that the same as proving the accusations that Yaung and Tseng simply are the tools of Ma’s double dealing?
Finally, since the DPP has already developed a proposal for legislative reform, all that remains to be seen is how the party will use its presidential and legislative election campaign strategies to give its legislative candidates the chance to fight a successful battle and bring about legislative reform.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers