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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS