The rate of public satisfaction with legislators is low, and reducing the number of seats in the legislature by half has become the consensus of the people. On Jan. 14, key staff from the Northern Taiwan Society, the Central Tai-wan Society, the Southern Taiwan Society, the Eastern Taiwan Society and the PEN Taiwan visited the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) headquarters, requesting that the KMT sign a commitment to halve the legislature, complete legislative negotiations on the issue and announce a concrete agreement by March 15.
The KMT only sent a low-level official, Wang Tan-ping (汪誕平), the head of its policy research department, to receive us. Wang said that halving the legislature involves constitutional amendments and should not be done recklessly without complete planning. He refused to sign our appeal. But we were unwilling to give up on our mission, and sent the appeal to both presidential candidates by registered mail.
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) signed the commitment before the deadline we proposed, but KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) has not yet responded. In the presidential debate on Feb. 21, Lien merely said that the issue involves other complementary measures, and that "it's necessary to propose concrete plans regarding legislators elected from the nationwide constituency, and the division of electoral districts." But he was unwilling to make a sincere response to any of these "concrete plans."
Thus, we can be sure that the blue camp's announcement to halve the legislature was merely a smokescreen to mask issues such as the legislature's right to approve the premier , a seniority system, the establishment of legislative professionalism, the redrawing of electoral districts that have been adopted to block the halving of the legislature. In light of this development, let us examine the blue camp's various excuses for blocking legislative reforms over the past three years.
In July 2001, the People First Party (PFP) and the New Party legislative caucuses said that "the number of legislators is not absolutely related to the chaos in the legislature, and that it's necessary to amend the legislative regulations to rebuild legislative order at the same time" in order to block legislative downsizing.
In April 2002, then KMT legislative caucus whip Lin Yi-shih (林益世) said that "reducing or halving the legislative seats is not very urgent, and that it's OK if a proposal is made before the election." He also said that "legislative reform involves the redrawing of electoral districts and reorganization of legislative committees," so as to block the proposal through these related issues.
Then PFP legislative caucus whip Diane Lee (李慶安) said that "it's necessary to adjust the portion of legislators elected from the nationwide constituency, clarify the position of the national security system and the conflict over whether the president has to brief the legislature regarding national security issues."
If halving the legislature is linked to countless other reform issues, it might take several decades for the issue to be resolved.
Last March, in response to a proposal to downsize the legislature, PFP legislative caucus deputy whip Chin Hui-chu (秦慧珠) said, "there are many urgent bills that need to be reviewed, and it's not urgent to handle this proposal since the legislative election is still two years away."
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) later said that it was very difficult to reach a consensus on a constitutional amendment about the number of legislative seats, making it impossible to reduce the seats by the end of the year due to the pan-blue camp's obstruction.
From 2001 to last year, the blue camp was unwilling to halve the legislature, and its proposal to cut the legislative seats from 225 to 113 was a blatant lie used to attract votes.
In response to former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung's (林義雄) demand for legislative reform, Lien said in late December that "since there's already a consensus to cut the legislative seats to 113, it should be carried out right away without further delay."
Why, then, has Lien delayed in accomplishing this, and refused to sign a commitment saying that the reform is urgent?
Due to restrictions on amending the Constitution, the Legislative Yuan can only submit an amendment "upon the proposal of one-fourth of all legislators and by a resolution of three-fourths of the members present at a meeting with a quorum of three-fourths of all legislators." Thus the reform project may be stopped forever by a handful of people.
To be honest, the goal of downsizing the legislature can only succeed by using the opportunity of the presidential election. If voters lose this bargaining chip, no matter who becomes president on March 20, it will be impossible for him to demand selfish legislators cut the number of seats. We can say that after March 20, the legislature will not be halved within the next four-year term. In the 2008 presidential election, if parties or candidates boycott the proposal again, downsizing the legislature will again be a hopeless cause.
We hereby sincerely appeal to the public to wake up:
First, the legislature should make the issue of halving the legislature its priority during legislative review. Other issues that are not directly related to it should all be considered minor. Those who violate this principle should be treated as traitors and be condemned by all.
Second, the pan-blue camp should integrate its opinions immediately. It should also send authorized representatives to negotiate with the pan-green camp on concrete plans.
Three, both camps should hold a press briefing every day to report their progress, in order to ensure the success of the issue.
Italy was known to the world as "the home of gangsters" before it reduced the number of its parliamentary seats and carried out the "single-member district, two-vote system." But it has gradually cleaned up its act following its legislative reforms.
Where Taiwan will head depends on whether the downsizing proposal is agreed upon before March 20. We hope that the people can show their concern over this.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS