The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) accusation that the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) proposal to amend the Constitution is motivated by political considerations has some value.
The DPP argues that the proposal is aimed more at limiting the power of the next administration in the eventuality of a DPP victory in January’s presidential election, rather than addressing the political impasse attributable to the current constitutional system — which allows the president to wield power but bear no responsibility.
In the KMT’s final proposal for constitutional reform put forward on Friday, the party asks that the legislature’s right to confirm the president’s choice of premier be reinstated, saying the change would help establish a constitutional system in which power and responsibility are balanced.
As the DPP’s prospects in the presidential election look healthy, it is no surprise that it described the proposal as a pre-emptive attempt by the KMT to usurp administrative power, even though public opinion polls have shown overwhelming support for reinstatement of the right of confirmation.
The KMT proposal augments the power of the legislature, but it does not include the necessary mechanisms that would enable the executive and legislative branches to achieve the constitutional principle of “checks and balances.” As a result, it would not only be of little help to effective legislative oversight, but could cause more political stalemates.
Under the present Constitution, the president can appoint the premier without the consent of the legislature, under the fourth constitutional amendment passed in 1997, but in an attempt to create a delicate balance of power the amendment also grants the legislature the right to bring down the premier by initiating a vote of no confidence. If the motion is approved, the premier must resign and a dissolution of the legislature can be requested.
However, in reality, the vote of no confidence option has never been used to break legislative-executive gridlock, mainly because lawmakers are afraid of being dismissed after they vote the premier out of office. Therefore the mechanism of a vote of no confidence becomes nonfunctional.
If the legislature is to regain the right to approve the appointment of the premier, the premier should be given the power to dissolve the legislature and thus neutralize legislative power. The KMT should have included in its proposal that the dissolution of the legislature should be activated by the president upon the premier’s request when the premier demands that the legislature call a vote of no confidence and the legislature declines to act.
The KMT proposal provided no solution to the lack of constitutional tools for resolving a political impasse, nor did it provide an incentive to make the no confidence mechanism possible. The idea of reinstating legislative consent for the appointment of the premier originates in the parliamentary system, in which Cabinet members can be drawn from the legislative branch. However, the mechanism — which could be an impetus for introducing a no-confidence motion — is absent in the proposal.
To enable the legislature to effectively place checks and balances on the executive branch, there is also a need to reform the legislative electoral system and allocate more resources for the legislature to carry out oversight by exercising the powers of audit, investigation and impeachment.
The KMT proposal includes some progressive ideas that respond to public demands for promoting participation in politics. It suggests that the voting age be lowered from 20 to 18 and lowering the distribution threshold for legislators-at-large seats from 5 percent of party votes to 3 percent, to favor of small parties. However, most of the proposal would only lead to more fragmentation of the Constitution.
Taiwan’s domestic political situation is following recognizable political rhythms, while the international environment surrounding Taiwan is undergoing a major transformation. Within Taiwan, there are ongoing battles between the legislative and executive branches over the budget, and between cities and the central government over resources. Tensions between political parties dominate headlines and consume much of the attention of party leaders. Jockeying is underway for local elections this November and national elections in 2028. And the longstanding philosophical debate inside Taiwan over how best to protect Taiwan and promote the good life remains unresolved. Amidst all of this, Taiwan continues to function well. It
In an article published on Tuesday in The Atlantic, titled “Will Taiwan Just Give Up?”, journalist Simon Shuster emphasizes the unpredictability of the US as an ally under US President Donald Trump and cites diminishing faith in the US as a contributor to what he sees as waning determination to resist China. As the title suggests, Shuster views a deal between Taiwan and China as an increasingly inevitable alternative to a costly war — one that Taiwan, lacking reliable allies and military capabilities, would eventually be destined to lose. He focuses on Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) — her
With candidate registration for this year’s local elections closed on Sept. 4 and the elections less than 80 days away, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) rapidly growing popularity has become the focus of political talk shows and online discussions over the past week, heating up the mayoral election race in Taipei. Local media headlines and political pundits have picked up his supporters’ slogan “ocean current” (洋流) — a play on the last character of Shen’s name, which literally means “ocean” (洋), and the character (流), which can mean “current,” “flow” or “trend” — to
When was the last time you heard a meaningful proposal to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal? There has been nothing on the subject since the June Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran; the promised 60 days of talks to settle questions around Tehran’s uranium-enrichment program never began and have long since expired. When the war was launched, on Feb. 28, a resolution of the nuclear dispute was prominent among the dizzying array of US and Israeli aims to explain the attack. But as should be clear by now, the attempt was entirely reliant on achieving regime change. That
RSS