Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng’s (王金平) alleged improper lobbying on behalf of Democratic Progressive Party caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) has unexpectedly prompted calls for legislative reform.
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) caucus is now talking about amending laws to the effect that in future, when negotiations on bills remain deadlocked for one month, they would automatically be put to a vote, thus preventing bills from being delayed by minority parties.
In order to stop minority parties from blocking the passage of bills once they reach the floor, the KMT caucus wants to amend regulations such as those contained in the Organic Act of the Legislative Yuan (立法院組織法) and increase the threshold for establishing a legislative caucus from the three legislators to four.
They are also saying that the negotiation process should be made more open and transparent, the expertise of specialized legislative committees should be respected, and tactics such as opposition parties occupying the podium should be ignored.
These measures really give one a strong sense of things being out of time and out of place.
The strong remedies being proposed highlight the many irregularities that exist in our legislative negotiation process. Policies like strengthening the functions of the legislature’s committees and making the negotiation process more open could indeed make legislative negotiation more transparent.
However, they would also limit the opportunities for smaller political parties to hold the ruling parties and individuals accountable.
Moves such as decreasing the influence of negotiations between different political parties and relying on voting and disciplinary measures to promptly resolve disputed bills would definitely create another wave of doubts over the strength of democracy and constitutional government in Taiwan.
Small parties sometimes threaten not to sign off on the conclusions of negotiations, or they may try to block bills from being passed, but tactics like these did not start during this legislative term. During the last legislative term, the Non-Partisan Taiwan Solidarity Union aligned itself with the KMT on all important bills, so it did not cause any problem for the majority party.
The key question is whose interests the small parties support — the ruling party or the opposition? Or are these minor parties concerned with the interests of the citizens they represent?
It is of course unreasonable that a caucus of three legislators — the minimum number required — could overthrow decisions made by a majority of the other 110 legislators. However, increasing the minimum caucus size to four is a blatant attempt to block bills proposed by the People First Party from being negotiated. Is respect for small parties’ right to have a say in the legislative agenda not commonly understood as being one of the most basic conditions for maintaining a democratic system?
Decreasing the influence of negotiations between different political parties and strengthening the functions of the legislature’s special committees are things that could help the legislature become more professional and specialized. However, it is very suspicious for the KMT to come up with this proposal at this time, when Wang is no longer as much under the party’s control as he used to be.
If there are no negotiations between political parties, it is foreseeable that bills will pile up and be passed on to full meetings of the legislature to be voted on article by article. Given the current state of the legislature, bills proposed by minor or opposition parties — even bills closely linked to the public’s welfare or that urgently need to be passed — will have a hard time being passed during legislative plenary sessions if they are not endorsed by the ruling party.
Even if negotiations between the ruling and opposition parties are held according to the rules that apply to legislative committee meetings, with the whole procedure being videotaped and broadcast live, there would still be no way to prevent negotiations from being held off camera. However, the question of whether negotiations are carried out in private is totally beside the point.
What is important is that during the negotiation process, every bill proposed by each political party is respected. More important still is that records must be kept, to allow all members of the public to hold the legislators and parties involved accountable. This would be the best way to put an end to closed-door negotiations.
What is even harder to understand is that the current reform proposals emphasize the use of negotiations and voting as well as so-called disciplinary measures to stop practices like legislators occupying the podium. The hope is that this will prevent violence from erupting in the legislature. Singapore’s parliament is one of the most efficient in the world, but that is because opposition parties’ resistance to the government is so weak that there is hardly any need to exercise police powers.
If a single legislator or those belonging to a minor party try to hold up legislative proceedings, perhaps that could be treated as a simple legislative disciplinary matter. However, when a major opposition party that holds 40 percent of the seats tries to block the legislative agenda, how can discipline be maintained simply by the legislative speaker exercising police powers? Is this not an issue on which the nation’s leaders should first engage in some self-reflection?
Chen Chien-fu is coordinator of monitoring Internet video on demand for Citizen’s Congress Watch.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry