A legislature is the most respected body to represent the public will of a nation, and lawmakers ought to serve as a voice for the public by fighting for its rights and interests, and protecting people’s welfare. Should executive powers stray from this path by making absurd and infeasible policies that are difficult to implement, the legislature would need to use supervisory powers and make revisions.
However, Taiwan’s legislature is a cacophony of bickering voices, often going off the deep end with its ridiculous demands and imposing roadblocks to governance. Lately, it has been threatening the Executive Yuan with cutting its entire budget if it does not implement the legislature’s demands. Such actions do not have the nation’s welfare in mind at all.
In countries with parliamentary democracy, the executive head is the one whose party holds the majority of seats in the legislature, unless the executive’s coalition dissolves. In presidential or semi-presidential systems, it is sometimes impossible to avoid opposing parties gaining control of different bodies of the government, which invariably leads to conflict.
Each time the US — a presidential system — faces a rejection of the national budget by an opposition-controlled US Congress, it often leads to brinkmanship with a possible government shutdown, with both sides of the aisle often averting disaster right at the 11th hour, and yet they always come out unscathed. In a semi-presidential system like France’s, the president has the constitutional power to dissolve the legislature and call for new parliamentary elections. When the premier and the legislature have disagreements and policies end up in gridlock, the legislature can propose a vote of no confidence and force the premier to resign. The president can then dissolve the legislature and hold legislative elections, relying on the public to decide the nation’s direction.
Taiwan’s system resembles a semi-presidential system. The Constitution states that the legislature has the power to propose a vote of no confidence against the premier with only one-third of the representatives in the legislature required to sign a petition for the motion to move to a formal vote. When the motion formally comes to the floor, more than half of the legislature is needed to vote in favor of the motion for it to pass. The premier would then need to resign and can at the same time request that the president dissolve the legislature and call for legislative elections.
Although these constitutional laws are not perfect, they embody the basic concept of holding and balancing power and legal responsibility. If the legislature is dissatisfied with the Executive Yuan, it could force a vote to get the premier to step down, but it would also have to bear the risk of public ire and scrutiny.
Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) faces legislative gridlock.
Cho hoped to work through give-and-take motions to obtain the legislature’s cooperation or go to the Constitutional Court to request that it issue legal interpretations and arbitrate. If these options are not accepted, he might need to tell the legislature to pass a resolution to sack him from the office.
In other words, Cho’s willingness shows he is not seeking personal glory. He is willing to risk a vote of no confidence and removal from office in the interests of smooth operation of the constitutional system.
Do any lawmakers show such resolve to take on the political responsibility?
If they truly believe the Executive Yuan to be unfit to rule, then they should put forth a vote of no confidence and force Cho to step down. At the same time, Cho could dissolve the legislature and hold new elections, allowing the public to decide the country’s future. If a newly elected legislature were to remain in opposition hands, then the president and new premier would naturally have to follow the public will.
However, that is not what our legislature is doing. The key to all this could be found in Cho’s strength of character. Do opposition lawmakers possess his resolve to walk away from power, or are they only intent on fighting over coveted positions?
Tommy Lin is president of the Formosa Republican Association and the Taiwan United Nations Alliance.
Translated by Tim Smith
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS