On Wednesday, the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Central Standing Committee passed a two-phase proposal for legislative reform.
The first stage consists of four parts: strengthening the committee seniority system to avoid party negotiations overriding committee expertise; establishing a system allowing the legislature to launch investigations and hold public hearings so it can efficiently oversee the executive branch; setting up clear and unambiguous rules to avoid conflict of interest; and making the Procedure Committee a neutral and transparent institution.
The second stage consists of amending the legislative electoral system to address the representative imbalance between districts (for example, the lone legislator from Matsu represents a population of 9,000, while a legislator from Taiwan proper represents an average of 300,000 people) and the problem of legislators only paying attention to issues related to their own electoral districts instead of taking a wider perspective.
The DPP’s passage of this proposal has ratcheted up the call for democratic reform via the upcoming elections.
The quality of legislative deliberation in Taiwan has been heavily criticized, with the legislature being branded one of the worst in the democratic world. Not only has this brought shame to the country, but the poor state of the legislature has also damaged the rights of the public and prevented the nation’s competitiveness from improving.
While there are many reasons why the legislature has reached this state, the key problems are a weak systemic foundation and the lack of support for constructive systemic development.
The weak systemic foundation stems from the rule of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), who, in order to block the legislature from acting as an effective counterbalance to the executive branch, introduced a system that was different from other nations.
One example is the spoils-sharing system, with each legislative committee having three conveners to allow the Chiangs to divide and conquer. Another is the semi-annual shake up of conveners and legislators on the different committees to suppress the level of specialization and prevent the public hearings and investigations necessary to maintain the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.
To retain its control over the legislature, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has worked hard to maintain these systemic shortcomings despite the fact that the whole legislature is now elected. Although academics and reform-minded legislators have repeatedly pushed for change, progress has been very difficult.
The lack of support for constructive systemic development can be seen in the unique, legally regulated system of closed-door negotiations between the government and the opposition which was established in 1999 — and which has only served to thoroughly destroy the spirit of specialized inquiry.
Apart from these, halving the number of legislative seats has thoroughly destroyed the democratic principle that every vote should have the same value.
Since the KMT’s control of the legislature has not only blocked reform, but also created a whole new set of systemic irregularities, the DPP has seized the right moment to push for legislative reform at a time when even Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) of the KMT says his party might have lost the chance to retain its legislative majority.
Given the public’s disgust with the legislature, the DPP’s call for legislative reform is very timely. DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has introduced her political views in the party’s 10-year guidelines and if DPP legislators push the call for legislative reform, they could launch a two-pronged strategy to take the edge off the KMT’s strategic combination of two elections in one day.
The calls for legislative reform are also a timely reminder about of the emphasis placed on the legislator-at-large lists. Legislative reform will have to overcome the obstacles posed by vested interests and this requires strong leadership. Looking at it from this perspective, both the DPP and the KMT should re-evaluate the significance of their legislator-at-large lists.
The KMT has emulated the DPP in nominating several representatives of disadvantaged groups and legislators who “don’t do as they’re told,” such as Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) and Tseng Chu-wei (曾巨威).
Its list might look good, but it raises three questions.
If the KMT wants reform, then why does Minister of Finance Lee Sush-der (李述德), who has been so severely criticized by Yaung and Tseng, remain in his job, instead of letting Tseng replace him? How should the public interpret this? Are they double dealing by keeping Lee for policymaking, while using Yaung and Tseng to tidy up the party’s image?
Letting Tseng and Yaung into the legislature without being willing to change the current approach of using it as the government’s private legislative office is in fact the same as depriving the duo of their supervisory tools. Isn’t that the same as proving the accusations that Yaung and Tseng simply are the tools of Ma’s double dealing?
Finally, since the DPP has already developed a proposal for legislative reform, all that remains to be seen is how the party will use its presidential and legislative election campaign strategies to give its legislative candidates the chance to fight a successful battle and bring about legislative reform.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS