During the next few days, the Government Reform Committee (
But this bill is ridiculous and its reasoning incomprehensible. Legislators often complain that their tenure is too short, but members of the US House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms. If official posts in democratic countries were not elected frequently, it would violate the most fundamental principle of power residing with the people. Four-year tenures are common for officials in democratic countries, but for US and Japanese senators it is six years, while the French presidential term is seven years. It therefore seems reasonable for Taiwan's legislators to have four-year terms.
However, the design of such systems cannot disregard national differences. When I was studying abroad, I heard that some countries allowed their citizens to vote by mail, which impressed me. But then I immediately thought of Kuo Yu-hsin (
I also recalled a joke Lenin made about Germany, where he said one had to wait in line to get into the railway station even when trying to start a revolution. But Chinese men and women, young and old alike, seem to use their kungfu skills, jumping through windows and the like, when scrambling for train seats. Can people with such different qualities be treated the same way?
With so many legislators starring in scandals, how unruly and unscrupulous will they be if we give them a four-year term? Does the idea of such a term length make you feel at ease?
Another rationale for extending the legislative term is so that legislators can be elected at the same time as the president, thereby avoiding a discrepancy between "older" and "newer" public opinion. This, however, is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Imagine if legislators and the president are elected at the same time but the Constitution remained otherwise unchanged. If one party wins the presidency but does badly in the legislative elections, how should that situation be dealt with? Should the public opinion reflected in the legislative elections be given preference, with the majority party or coalition forming the government while the president goes off fishing or mountain climbing? This would be greatly disappointing to the president's supporters. In such a scenario, the country might as well change over to a parliamentary system, since there is no real need for the president to be elected directly by the people.
Or should we let the party that wins the presidency walk away with the whole prize, leaving an angry legislative majority attacking the government through boycotts? This would be very destabilizing for the country, as can be seen from the past 18 months. Absurdity and stalemate would continue.
The alternative is to amend the Constitution to take into account such an electoral outcome, where the president and the majority party or coalition in the legislature each hold half the power. Currently, if the legislature
proposes a vote of no confidence, and the premier and the president respond by dissolving the legislature, fresh legislative elections would have to be held. This would mean that the legislature once again would be elected at a different time from the president.
Unless we decide whether we want a parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential system, we can't even begin to discuss the simultaneous election of legislators and president and extending legislative terms. The Government Reform Committee has said nothing about these issues. Even so, none of these systems necessitates the simultaneous election of legislators and president.
It is true that elections costs money. However, extending the legislative term in order to decrease the number of elections is a big undertaking for a small return and would prove in the end to be an even greater drain on national resources.
Ladies and gentlemen of the legislature, if you want to extend your tenure, then let's discuss it once you have earned the respect of the people of Taiwan.
Lin Li is a an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of European Studies, Tamkang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS