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
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS