On Sept. 11, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) revoked Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng’s (王金平) party membership. As a consequence, Wang may be stripped of his status both as legislator-at-large and as legislative speaker. However, the Taipei District Court on Sept. 13 ruled in favor of Wang’s provisional injunction seeking to retain his membership.
By comparison, the German federal court believes that even if a party revokes the membership of a legislator-at-large, that legislator will not lose their status as a lawmaker and they can continue to perform their duties as an independent.
This makes it clear that the claim that a legislator-at-large will lose their legislative seat and even their status as legislative speaker if their party membership is revoked is not necessarily accurate. The long-term goal for legislative reform should be to make the speakership a position of impartiality. To do this, the law should be amended to demand that a legislative speaker withdraw from their party in order to remain neutral.
A legislative speaker should always remain neutral. The UN secretary-general, for example, is elected from among diplomats from neutral states, so that they can remain neutral when handling UN affairs. Similarly, a legislative speaker’s job is to maintain order on the legislative floor, and the speaker should have no concrete power to participate in the operations of the legislature.
Because of this, the post is normally a symbolic one in other countries. Yet in Taiwan, legislative speakers do not have to withdraw from their party after being elected, and they can continue to participate in legislative operations without any separation between party and government. This could hinder the legislature from performing its duties in a rational manner and keep it from remaining neutral.
In any democratic country, parties are seen as a means, while the goal is to rule the nation. Therefore, the ultimate goal of a party is to win public support in order to be able to gain power. Once it has gained power, it has to respect mainstream opinion in order to maintain its advantage and stay in power.
If it moves in the opposite direction to public opinion and places its own goals above the nation’s will, so that the party overrides public opinion — intervening with appointments of government personnel and policy implementation — that would be tantamount to a party directing the government. This is the source of chaos in a democratic society: a group of people external to the government system blocking or even hurting government operations.
The anti-democratic nature of such practices is obvious. It is thus evident that a party leading the government is both illegitimate and illegal.
Directly elected representatives are required to follow the will of their constituencies, not the opinion of their parties. However, most parties excessively manipulate their representatives, making it hard for them to fully reflect public opinion. Since they have to follow the orders of their parties, they often oppose issues for the sake of opposition, which in the end will lead to public condemnation.
In some countries with a cabinet system, legislative speakers withdraw from their own parties once they are elected, in order to remain neutral and keep a distance from party affairs. They gain a higher status because they devote themselves to legislative operations alone. Speaker impartiality is an option well worth considering.
Tseng Chao-chang is a former chairman of the Taiwan Bar Association.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations