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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS