Mon, Oct 07, 2013 page8

• Proposals weaken minority rights

  • By Chen Chien-fu 陳建甫
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng’s (王金平) alleged improper lobbying on behalf of Democratic Progressive Party caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) has unexpectedly prompted calls for legislative reform.

  The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) caucus is now talking about amending laws to the effect that in future, when negotiations on bills remain deadlocked for one month, they would automatically be put to a vote, thus preventing bills from being delayed by minority parties.

  In order to stop minority parties from blocking the passage of bills once they reach the floor, the KMT caucus wants to amend regulations such as those contained in the Organic Act of the Legislative Yuan (立法院組織法) and increase the threshold for establishing a legislative caucus from the three legislators to four.

  They are also saying that the negotiation process should be made more open and transparent, the expertise of specialized legislative committees should be respected, and tactics such as opposition parties occupying the podium should be ignored.

  These measures really give one a strong sense of things being out of time and out of place.

  The strong remedies being proposed highlight the many irregularities that exist in our legislative negotiation process. Policies like strengthening the functions of the legislature’s committees and making the negotiation process more open could indeed make legislative negotiation more transparent.

  However, they would also limit the opportunities for smaller political parties to hold the ruling parties and individuals accountable.

  Moves such as decreasing the influence of negotiations between different political parties and relying on voting and disciplinary measures to promptly resolve disputed bills would definitely create another wave of doubts over the strength of democracy and constitutional government in Taiwan.

  Small parties sometimes threaten not to sign off on the conclusions of negotiations, or they may try to block bills from being passed, but tactics like these did not start during this legislative term. During the last legislative term, the Non-Partisan Taiwan Solidarity Union aligned itself with the KMT on all important bills, so it did not cause any problem for the majority party.

  The key question is whose interests the small parties support — the ruling party or the opposition? Or are these minor parties concerned with the interests of the citizens they represent?

  It is of course unreasonable that a caucus of three legislators — the minimum number required — could overthrow decisions made by a majority of the other 110 legislators. However, increasing the minimum caucus size to four is a blatant attempt to block bills proposed by the People First Party from being negotiated. Is respect for small parties’ right to have a say in the legislative agenda not commonly understood as being one of the most basic conditions for maintaining a democratic system?

  Decreasing the influence of negotiations between different political parties and strengthening the functions of the legislature’s special committees are things that could help the legislature become more professional and specialized. However, it is very suspicious for the KMT to come up with this proposal at this time, when Wang is no longer as much under the party’s control as he used to be.

  If there are no negotiations between political parties, it is foreseeable that bills will pile up and be passed on to full meetings of the legislature to be voted on article by article. Given the current state of the legislature, bills proposed by minor or opposition parties — even bills closely linked to the public’s welfare or that urgently need to be passed — will have a hard time being passed during legislative plenary sessions if they are not endorsed by the ruling party.

  Even if negotiations between the ruling and opposition parties are held according to the rules that apply to legislative committee meetings, with the whole procedure being videotaped and broadcast live, there would still be no way to prevent negotiations from being held off camera. However, the question of whether negotiations are carried out in private is totally beside the point.

  What is important is that during the negotiation process, every bill proposed by each political party is respected. More important still is that records must be kept, to allow all members of the public to hold the legislators and parties involved accountable. This would be the best way to put an end to closed-door negotiations.

  What is even harder to understand is that the current reform proposals emphasize the use of negotiations and voting as well as so-called disciplinary measures to stop practices like legislators occupying the podium. The hope is that this will prevent violence from erupting in the legislature. Singapore’s parliament is one of the most efficient in the world, but that is because opposition parties’ resistance to the government is so weak that there is hardly any need to exercise police powers.

  If a single legislator or those belonging to a minor party try to hold up legislative proceedings, perhaps that could be treated as a simple legislative disciplinary matter. However, when a major opposition party that holds 40 percent of the seats tries to block the legislative agenda, how can discipline be maintained simply by the legislative speaker exercising police powers? Is this not an issue on which the nation’s leaders should first engage in some self-reflection?

  Chen Chien-fu is coordinator of monitoring Internet video on demand for Citizen’s Congress Watch.

  Translated by Drew Cameron
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Ministry lifts overseas limits on TSMC

  • 2

    New missiles to be deployed in north

  • 3

    Chinese spy prosecutions tripled in four years

  • 4

    TSMC has begun 4-nm chip production in US, official says

  • 5

    Snowfall a reminder of former ski resort on Hehuanshan