Under the nation’s legislative election system, not all votes are created equal. This has distorted the structure of public opinion and it is the reason why restoring the legislature’s right to approve an appointed premier will not work. From the perspective of constitutional theory and spirit, this power is a serious matter that requires careful consideration.
First, in the context of the separation of powers and the balance of power, executive and legislative power are equal at the constitutional level. The legislative branch oversees the executive branch, which directs the legislature. Neither is subordinate to the other.
However, the power of the legislative branch to approve the premier’s appointment entails an intervention by the legislature in the appointment of a head of the executive branch. Since the premier is approved by the legislature, hierarchically speaking, the legislature is superior to the premier. As a result, the executive branch is controlled by the legislative branch, which is a violation of constitutional principles.
Second, if a nominated candidate for premier has to seek the legislature’s support and vote, would that entail an under-the-table exchange of interests? Would the vote-buying scandals that have occurred in connection to council speaker elections in the past be replayed in the legislature? What would the implications be if this were to happen?
Furthermore, if legislative and presidential elections take place at the same time or are separated by only a month or two, and if the presidential election is won by one party, while the legislative majority is won by another party whose proportion of the vote and total number of votes received are both less than what the president received — for example, the president garners 60 percent of the vote, whereas the majority party garners 55 percent — then the legislature’s power to approve the president’s appointment for premier would cause a clash between representative democracy — since the legislature has received fewer votes — and direct democracy — since the directly elected president received more votes. A constitutional disaster would be unavoidable.
So, how should the government answer to the legislature, and how should the legislature hold the government accountable?
The answer is through votes of confidence and motions of no confidence. The Constitution of the French Fifth Republic, for example, does not stipulate that parliament should exercise the right to approve the premier.
Article 49 of the French Constitution states: “The prime minister, after deliberation by the Council of Ministers, may commit the Government’s responsibility before the National Assembly with regard to its program or, should the occasion arise, to a statement of general policy.”
It also states: “The prime minister may, after deliberation by the Council of Ministers, commit the government’s responsibility to the National Assembly on the passing of a bill.”
This is a vote of no confidence by the French National Assembly on policy, not on personnel appointments. If the assembly passes a resolution of no confidence, the prime minister is to tender the resignation of the government.
By contrast, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which has always held a majority in Taiwan’s legislature, has no intention to put forward a motion of no confidence, thereby taking responsibility for supervising the government.
Instead, it is busying itself with outlandish advocacy contrary to fundamental constitutional principles. This is utterly puzzling.
Steve Wang is an assistant professor in the Institute of European Studies at Nanhua University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS