The Lobbying Act (遊說法) approved on Aug. 8 last year officially took effect this Aug. 8 after a familiarity period that seems to have passed almost unnoticed. We should look into whether the act, which is seen as one of the “sunshine bills,” will make lobbying activities more transparent, or will represent a barrier to the public’s right to petition and to the development of Taiwan’s already struggling civil society.
The act stipulates that any non-governmental organization (NGO) or individual that wishes to lobby the legislature or other administrative agencies must first register with the lobbied agency. No NGO will be allowed to engage in lobbying unrelated to articles of the association. This raises the question of what exactly the authorities consider to be “related.”
If a women’s NGO plans to lobby against a tax policy that affects the distribution of family income, would that be considered related to women’s issues?
The registration system is a “licensing system” whereby obtaining official approval is necessary for lobbying actions. This process may take as long as two months. This is a major limitation of petition rights that approaches a violation of the Constitution.
The act does not offer an “emergency registration system” to meet the lobbying needs of Taiwan’s very fluid political environment. This is another obstacle that no doubt will present many difficulties.
A closer look at the act reveals that the definition of lobbying is unclear and can be manipulated. Using an assistant to “express opinions” to legislators and administrative officials is a way to bypass the act. Assistants wield great influence over elected officials, making it convenient for lobbyists to use this method.
Another issue is whether a claim to be “petitioning” or “making a plea” rather than “lobbying” would undermine the act.
The act has a regulation saying a lobbyist must pass the Senior Examination for Civil Service Personnel, hold a certificate and be in business. However it is very hard to see any link between the exam and one’s suitability for lobbying.
And what is the reason for allowing “foreigners” and “foreign groups” to lobby while disallowing people from China, Hong Kong and Macau? We should examine whether this will encourage people from China, Hong Kong and Macau to carry out “informal” lobbying.
Who will monitor the disclosure requirements mentioned in the act and exactly what sort of disclosure mechanisms have been designed for public officials? It is hard to understand why penalties are aimed only at lobbyists and not at those who are being lobbied in connection to undisclosed information.
One cannot see how a “sunshine bill” so full of loopholes can promote transparency. The complicated details of the registration process are likely to increase the burden of already financially stretched NGOs.
These regulations run counter to the development of civil society and will block NGOs that want to engage in public welfare-related lobbying activities. Ignoring the fact that a group violating the Lobbying Act risks fines ranging from NT$50,000 to NT$2.5 million, I’m afraid this “sunshine bill” will be unable to control the lobbying of underground groups and will very likely block channels for expressing opinions on public affairs to legislators and Cabinet members.
The Lobbying Act reflects the total ignorance among legislators of the development of civil society and the absurdities of NGO-related legislation. Unfortunately, the abovementioned problems are just the beginning of the government’s misguided attempt to manage lobbying.
Liu Ching-yi is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS