Mon, Sep 20, 1999 page3

• `Reform' has become final refuge of political ruffians

  TERM EXTENSIONS The amendments have become law, but the furor remains and could even grow

  • B y Lauren Chen / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The terms extensions of the National Assembly and the Legislative Yuan may have become law when President Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) promulgated this year's constitutional amendments on Sept. 15 -- but the furor over the extensions shows no signs of dying down.

  The KMT's expulsion of National Assembly Speaker Su Nan-cheng (蘇南成) from the party -- and therefore also from his post -- on Sept. 8, made him the scapegoat for the affair, but has done little to calm the uproar.

  Meanwhile, the DPP's assembly caucus leaders -- who worked with their KMT counterparts to get the extensions passed -- continue to claim the package was the maximum reform effort possible, given the current political climate.

  

  New Party deputies at the National Assembly protest the vote to extend the session late last month.

  PHOTO: TAIPEI TIMES

  Critics, however, say that it is too early to determine whether the term extension amendment will prove to be good medicine or poison for the congressional reform effort.

  Under the amendment, the length of the current National Assembly term was extended by two years and 48 days to June 2002; the voting process for the next assembly election was changed to a proportional system, in which seats will be divided up according to the ratio of votes each party gains in that year's legislative elections; and the number of deputies was reduced from the current 316 to 150. The next legislative elections were also postponed from December 2001 to June 2002.

  The deputies passed the amendment despite strong objections from both the DPP and the KMT party headquarters, as well as a lack of public support.

  DPP assembly caucus leader Liu I-deh (劉一德), the main figure behind the term extensions, defended the vote as a long-term strategy.

  "Even though we want to perform a surgical operation to remove the `political appendix,' we have to first give it an anesthetic injection,'' he said, referring to the DPP's long-standing view of the National Assembly as an unnecessary institution.

  "In using a `sweetener' [of term extensions] to lure the support of deputies in exchange for a proportional representation system, such a deal could not be more profitable," he said.

  "My proposal aimed to abolish the assembly by means of suicide," Liu added.

  Others such as Wu Nan-jen (吳乃仁), a member of the DPP's Central Standing Committee, echoed Liu's belief.

  "Even though we cannot abolish the assembly in the short term, a proportional system can help prevent the situation from getting any worse. If we continue to hold assembly elections, I can guarantee that the quality of deputies will continue to decline," Wu said.

  "I would rather chain the monster-like assembly with a proportional system than allows unrestrained elected deputies to amend the constitution however they like," he added.

  Some academics dismiss the "reform" vocabulary, saying there is nothing to guarantee such reform aims will be acted upon. Or, as one scholar put it, the "reform cloak has become no more than a `final refuge' for political scoundrels.''

  Beyond the actual reform considerations, however, deputies from both the DPP and the KMT admit that if they failed to cooperate to pass the controversial amendments with the required three-fourths majority (as happened in the previous assembly session), they would have run into more difficulties in the new session.

  "In a newly-elected assembly next March [if there had been no extension] there would likely have been more than 100 deputies supporting KMT maverick presidential candidate James Soong (宋楚瑜), which would make the political variables much more complicated than now," said Chen Ching-jen (陳鏡仁), a KMT assembly caucus leader.

  But critics said the term extension package not only violated the deputies' basic mandate with the electorate, but is bound to have a negative influence on their motives.

  "The ends can never justified the means -- and the ends are almost unreachable," said Nan Fang Shou, a prominent political critic.

  "A fixed term length is the fundamental principle of democracy. No other reason could overthrow that basic rule of the game. So how could the deputies extend their terms by more than two years without asking the permission of voters them-selves?" he added.

  Other academics expressed doubts over the blueprint for the assembly's future drawn up by the two parties' delegates, saying that although the assembly will now be chosen by proportional representation, that in itself will not necessary result in the abolition of the assembly.

  "The only thing I can see the term extension doing is merely changing the electoral approach of deputies -- the authority of the deputies' offices still remains unchanged. And we have to wait at least six years to evaluate the effects of the new arrangements, so at this point there are few clues as to how to actually abolish the assembly," said Chen Shin-min (陳新民), a constitutional scholar from Academia Sinica.

  Hu Fu (胡佛), a renowned constitutional expert from National Taiwan University, pointed out that even if the assembly adopts a totally proportional system, that in itself can do little to fix the assembly's institutional problems, and could in fact add to them.

  "Imagine if there is no re-election pressure. The assembly could end up becoming a stage for the three major parties to put pressure on their own deputies, make their own demands, then dividing the spoils among themselves," Hu said.

  Scholars say there are other possible contradictions that would come with a proportional system, including the rationalization of the "division of labor" between the as-sembly and the legislature.

  The assembly's current exclusive powers, for example, include both confirmation of senior governmental officials and amending the constitution.

  "It would be rather odd to see constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature still having to earn the approval from assembly deputies -- who are themselves chosen as a result of the election of lawmakers," Chen said.

  Furthermore, analysts stressed, the Constitution is an "end value" by itself, not a tool for political infighting.

  "The Constitution is a fundamental law, not candy. How can we use it to serve another purpose?" Hu asked.

  Basically, Hu said, a legal framework by itself is never enough to bring out mature democratic politics. He cited the example of the recently introduced proportional system, saying once it is transplanted to Taiwan, it will forever change the island's political landscape.

  "The law by itself is never enough," Hu said. "Taiwan has implemented reforms since 1990, but the more reform we introduced, the more we actually backpedaled, and neither the parties nor the public have been able to identify the proper criteria for developing democracy."

  Critics such as Nan said nobody can deny achieving reform carries a price, and that the core of the issue will be how high the price is and how long will it take.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    US bolstering first island chain deterrence: NSB report

  • 2

    Taiwan, Poland to codevelop drones

  • 3

    Climber to attempt free solo of 101

  • 4

    Cameron Menzies cracks in the Palace as darts faces an uncomfortable truth

  • 5

    China ‘rejects’ chips, outfoxing US: Sacks