On July 24, the US House of Representatives voted 420 to 1 in favor of expelling Congressman James Traficant for ethics violations after he was convicted on corruption charges.
On July 18th, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (similar to the Legislative Yuan's Discipline Committee) had voted unanimously to recommend that the House expel Traficant. Among other things, Traficant was accused of receiving kickbacks and requesting businessmen to repair a boat and a farm for him in return for advantages they had obtained through favors performed by Traficant in Congress.
One congressman disapprovingly said, "We come to Congress to create wealth for voters, not to amass personal wealth."
In 1980, the House expelled Democrat Michael Myers for accepting money from undercover FBI agents posing as Arab sheiks seeking favors from Congress in the Abscam scandal.
Both the Senate and House have strict rules with detailed norms and restrictions regarding conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts and political donations, and any income outside that earned from the post of representative or senator.
Any violation of internal regulations, or even legislation, is handled by the ethics committee, which may recommend various kinds of punishment, the most serious of which is to recommend the disqualification and expulsion of a congressional member. Congressional members in violation of legislation or internal regulations will normally resign during the investigation conducted by the ethics committee, or they may not be nominated during the nomination process for the following congressional election.
The most important duties of a member of Congress are to review legislation and monitor the US government. But who monitors whether the members themselves are abusing their power or trying to win personal gain while carrying out these duties?
The US experience tells us that there are many regulations and restrictions controlling the behavior of lawmakers. In contrast, we could almost say that the behavior of legislators in Taiwan is not controlled by any restrictions or regulations at all, often leaving party caucuses all but helpless when it comes to dealing with them.
An incumbent legislator may simultaneously serve as board director or chairman of multiple corporations, and a legislator involved in ongoing legal proceedings may not only become a member on the Judiciary Committee, but he can even become the convener of that committee.
Board directors and chairmen of securities companies may become members of the Financial Committee and gain access to insider information. Presidents of investment companies may become members of the same committee where they can exert pressure on state-owned banks to invest in their funds. Members of the board of directors of private schools may become members of the Education and Culture Committee with the idea of obtaining subsidies from the Ministry of Education. Legislators have even become members of the Transportation Committee and the Economics and Energy Committee to be able to win construction contracts and so on.
Article 22 of the Legislators' Conduct Act (
In addition, the Regulations Regarding Public Servants and Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest (
Despite these laws, legislators in Taiwan do not avoid conflicts of interest, and they do not normally attend the legislature or participate in political activities. Only when there is a review of, or vote regarding, legislation involving their individual or family interests do they show up.
It also goes without saying that no legislator has been reported to the Discipline Committee for violating the regulations regarding conflicts of interest. Apart from being forced to respond to heavy popular pressure to strip Lo Fu-chu (羅福助) of his powers for hitting another legislator, the Discipline Committee has never been of any use at all.
For one thing, no member wants to offend his fellow legislators. Secondly, the 36 committee members are made up of three members from each of the other 12 legislative committees, elected by the other members on their committee. Such an appointment process sets the stage for booty sharing. What's more, legislators involved in ongoing legal proceedings or who are in violation of the regulations regarding conflicts of interest are all eligible for membership on this committee. Due to these circumstances, the committee doesn't even enjoy the most basic public trust.
It is not appropriate to have too many members on the Discipline Committee. Ten or less would be sufficient. Membership should be made up of prestigious legislators with high moral standards. Even more importantly, the committee must have some sway, such as the power to investigate and convene hearings.
Why have the House of Representatives and the Senate formulated such strict regulations? It is certainly not the case that the moral standards of their members are higher than those of our legislators, but rather that all their proceedings are quite transparent. The results of legislative votes and records of attendance and political donations can be easily checked by voters on the Internet.
Even more importantly, there are three major non-governmental organizations monitoring Con-gress -- Common Cause, FEC Watch and the Better Government Association -- that continuously monitor the behavior of members of Congress and make their findings public. Today's standards have been established thanks to the existence of these grassroots organizations and their pressure on Congress to constantly improve.
If we want our legislators to earnestly review legislation without looking to personal gain, voters do not only have to vote for good people on election day, but after the elections, they must organize themselves to monitor the activities of legislators. It would be very difficult to imagine that a legislature not being monitored would be capable of any kind of remarkable achievement.
Hawang Shiow-duan is a professor and chairperson of the department of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS