Thinking fast and slow is an understanding of decisionmaking made popular in psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s best-selling book by the same name. This approach could perhaps also be used to compare and analyze collectively made legislative policy and political governance.
A fast-thinking approach to legislation is valuable in that it is quick and decisive, but it carries a risk that the wrong decision will be made. A slow-thinking approach focuses on mature consideration and careful planning before taking action, although that often comes at a higher cost of decisionmaking.
The Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program and its special budget that were passed last year, as well as amendments to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) and changes to the irrigation association system that were passed last month, are examples of a fast-thinking approach.
The national conferences on judicial and pension reform, on the other hand, would be closer to a slow-thinking approach.
Administrative expertise and party politics are two kinds of heuristics based on which the fast-thinking legislative approach makes a fast decision.
However, if the policy planned and proposed by administrative departments is put forward in a rush without convincing planning and evaluation by experts, while partisan maneuvering by the different legislative caucuses reduces the time spent on rational deliberation, then the decisionmaking process would inevitably be criticized and its quality would be questioned.
Although then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Chang Ching-chung (張慶忠) rammed through the cross-strait service trade agreement as legislative committee convener in just 30 seconds only four years ago, the government still seems to rely to a considerable extent on a fast-thinking approach to legislative decisionmaking.
However, many commentators have denounced the slow-thinking approach, because they think that communication and negotiation are a waste of time and will have a negative impact on reform dynamic.
In the post-Sunflower movement era, why is Taiwan still adopting a winner-takes-all fast-thinking approach rather than a slow-thinking approach of deliberative democracy when it comes to substantial, complicated or difficult legislative decisions?
Whether this should be attributed to radicalized competition among political parties is something that would still have to be tested. After all, the more preconceived ideas a political party holds, the more constant and heated party competitions will become and the more difficult it will be for parties to engage in self-reflection.
Another structural factor that should be considered is the pressure on the government to achieve visible political performance and to show its decisiveness in a short period of time, even if the slow-thinking approach to legislation is more beneficial to the nation in the long term.
Moreover, there seems to be a large group of people who tend to use the authoritarian regimes of the past or in neighboring nations as a benchmark for evaluating government efficiency and political leadership, as they are impatient with democratic deliberation. Such a mindset is hazardous, as learning from authoritarian rulers will only lead to the dismantling of the great wall of democracy.
The fast and slow-thinking approaches to legislation should be discussed in more detail, as the choice between the two not only affects legislative quality, but is also closely related to what sort of democracy Taiwan wants to become.
Su Yen-tu is an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming and Perry Svensson
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his