The parliamentary system originated in England, where a bicameral system developed. Many countries also adopted the bicameral system when they copied the UK in setting up their parliaments.
There must be a good reason that the bicameral system has spread to many countries. If parliamentary members are unable to control their emotional impulses when debating motions, the nature of majority rule in parliamentary politics might lead to irrational resolutions. However, under a bicameral system, a bill can be enacted only if it is unanimously resolved by both assemblies, chambers or houses, which avoids rashness and carelessness.
A parliament is a lawmaking institution, and is often in a superior position given the nature of its authority — it can use its legislative power to restrain all matters, and its budgetary power can be used to interfere with the activities of the executive office. As a body representing the public, its abuse of power is inevitable.
A parliamentary autocracy is particularly dangerous, as it is a system in which the parliament is a collegial body and cannot be held accountable. This is especially true of a unicameral system. In contrast, the bicameral system aims to weaken the power of parliament to prevent parliamentary autocracy. This is why it has been adopted by many countries.
THREE-YEAR TERMS
Originally, the term of office for Legislative Yuan members was three years, with the ability to stand for re-election, but their election should be completed within three months before the expiration of their term of office, Article 65 of the Constitution states.
However, in the seventh Constitutional amendment in 2005, the length of their term was extended to four years, as seen in Article 4 of Additional Articles of the Constitution (中華民國憲法增修條文). Increasing the power of legislators makes the unicameral system more vulnerable to abuse of power.
As elected representatives, lawmakers are responsible for monitoring the government’s administration on the public’s behalf. They should be clean and self-respecting. Yet regrettably, cases of “lobbying for legislation” used to be frequent.
Commentators say that to prevent corruption among legislators, the most important thing is to shorten their term in office. If the legislators’ terms are extended and their powers are increased, their campaigns would have a high rate of return on investment, which would encourage election bribery. After being elected, they would inevitably seek to amend laws to fulfill the promises they made to their supporters.
The duty of these public representatives is only to supervise the administration of the government. Therefore, their terms do not need to be four years. Instead, legislators’ terms in office should be modeled on the two-year terms offered by the US House of Representatives.
US SYSTEM
In the US, voters have a clear idea of their representatives’ performance. Competent representatives do not need to spend lots of money to be re-elected — and there is no reason to do so, because they have limited powers and short terms, so there is no point in bribing them. This is the great insight of the founding fathers of the US.
To avoid election bribery and the improper exchange of interests in legislating, Taiwan should improve its system, starting with, most importantly, shortening the term length for legislators.
Tseng Chao-chang is a former chairman of the Taiwan Bar Association.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS