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.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
RSS