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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS