The parliamentary system originated in the UK, where a bicameral structure — comprising two houses — has long been in place. Many countries that have modeled their legislatures after the British system have likewise adopted a bicameral framework.
The widespread adoption of bicameralism is not without reason. In parliamentary politics, where decisions are made by majority rule, legislative debates can often be driven by emotion rather than reason, leading to hasty or irrational decisions. A bicameral system mitigates such risks by requiring concurrence from two separate chambers before a bill can become law, thereby preventing rash or careless legislation.
As the legislative branch of government, parliaments generally hold a superior position in terms of authority. Legislative power allows them to regulate all matters and interfere with the executive branch through budgetary powers.
As the representative body of the people, it is difficult to completely prevent a parliament from abusing its power.
Compared with autocratic rule by an individual, parliamentary despotism can be even more dangerous, as collective bodies are not easily held accountable. This flaw is especially pronounced under a unicameral system.
Originally, the term of office for members of the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan was three years, with the possibility of re-election. Elections were required to be held within three months before the end of each term, as stipulated in Article 65 of the Constitution. However, subsequent constitutional reforms have since increased the term to four years. Coupled with the unicameral system, this has significantly expanded the power of legislators, increasing the risk of abuse.
Some commentators argue that effective safeguards against legislative corruption should focus on shortening term lengths. This is because longer terms and greater power increase the “return on investment” for electoral campaigns, thereby incentivizing vote-buying and electoral bribery. Once elected, legislators might feel compelled to “repay political debts” through delivering promised legislative amendments that benefit the specific interests of their supporters.
Since legislators are primarily tasked with overseeing government operations, their terms should not be overly long. The US House of Representatives, for example, operates on a two-year term cycle. This encourages regular turnover, allowing voters to clearly assess their representatives’ performance. Competent legislators can be re-elected without the need for excessive campaign spending. This system reflects the foresight of the framers of the US constitution.
To curb the problems of vote-buying and legislative corruption stemming from “promised lawmaking” for personal gain, systemic reforms are essential, especially shortening the term of office for legislators.
Although the recall movement did not succeed, the civic leaders involved should not be discouraged. Their aspirations for reform are commendable, and they should persevere in their efforts for the nation and the public, and for the sake of freedom and democracy.
Tseng Chao-chang is a former chairman of the Taiwan Bar Association.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS