BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC Progressive Party (DPP) won less than one-fourth of the legislative seats in the Jan. 12 elections, it would be difficult for the party to get any of the 16 legislative committee chairmanships if the posts were filled by voting. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has offered to let the DPP have four of these seats, and DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) has said the party should accept it or it might not be able to propose laws in future.
It would of course be a problem if the DPP were unable to file important law proposals independently. Nonetheless, I propose that the offer be declined. Even with four committee chairpersons, the laws the DPP can propose would be limited. Furthermore, even with a DPP member at the helm, the party's committee members will still be a minority, making it virtually impossible for any bill to be passed in accord with DPP wishes.
Instead, the DPP should use this opportunity to demand legislative reform. Each legislative committee used to have three chairpersons. Although this number has been reduced to two, it is still high compared with other democracies. This strange structure is a remnant of the authoritarian period.
Intent on dominating and reducing the legislature's power, dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) adopted many unusual measures, including appointing three chairpersons for each legislative committee. Most countries have only one chairperson, normally a senior lawmaker, to strengthen the legislature and create an effective counterweight to the executive.
Chiang chose three chairpersons per committee to divide the spoils of power in line with his "divide and conquer" policy. He also instituted a rule requiring members to move to a different committee every legislative session, which ensured that everyone could sit on the more popular committees and that members never became specialists.
This spirit of sharing the spoils of power can also be seen in the interpellation system. The interpellation is meant to be a political discussion between the opposition and the Cabinet. But in Taiwan, both opposition and ruling party legislators take turns asking questions mostly intended to impress their constituents. This system made things easy for the Cabinet and legislators, but it weakened the legislature's status and effectiveness.
With democratization, it should be possible to cast off this old system. New legislators should make it clear that they are not just a new set of squabbling legislative "monsters" and should use this opportunity for reform. Ma is using the old spoils-sharing system to co-opt smaller parties by creating an image of generosity and the small parties, unfortunately, are happily biting.
To change this system, Taiwan should adopt the standard system with one chairperson and one vice chairperson instead of two or three chairpersons per committee. Having a single committee head is necessary to establish legislative accountability and effectively counterbalance the government's power. The system of rotating legislators between committees should also be changed. Instead of sitting on a different committee every year, legislators should stay in one committee for an entire legislative term.
The interpellation should be reinstated as a political discussion between the opposition and the government. I hope the new legislature will make this effort to address public doubts about the new legislature. Having suffered a serious blow to its prestige, the DPP should take up this appeal and stop perpetuating the old spoils-sharing system.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY ANNA STIGGELBOUT
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS