Like the more advanced liberal democracies of the West, Taiwan's is an adversarial political system, in which the very nature of an opposition party is to oppose the government.
But where Taiwan's system veers away from the liberal democratic traditions of the West is the pan-blue camp's bitter stubbornness in the role of opposition. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party's (PFP) opposition to bills proposed by President Chen Shui-bian's (
The turf-war like rivalry in the nation's legislature has brought it to a new low. The latest legislative session, which drew to a close on May 31, succeeded in passing an abysmally low number of bills. With just 39 bills made into law, it was the poorest performance ever -- breaking the previous record low of 53.
The opposition, with its numerical majority in the legislature, is to blame for this record. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been in power for more than five years now, and the pan-blue camp has controlled the legislature for the same amount of time. During that time, legislative sessions have brought about the passage of double, and even triple the number of bills passed in the last sitting. In the two sessions in 2003, for example, the turbulent lawmaking body passed 206 bills into law.
Even with the flurry of controversy surrounding last year's presidential election, a similarly combative legislature voted 75 bills into law. Convinced Chen's re-election was illegitimate and unfair, the pan-blue camp refused to review any bills proposed by the Cabinet in the relevant committees, and persisted in stalling them with their majority in the legislature's procedure committee. For a time after March 20 last year, KMT and PFP legislators simply sat on their hands, rejected new legislation and voted down any bill that made it to the legislative floor.
This begs the question: How could a legislature in which the majority of lawmakers are interested only in contesting the presidential election and bringing the government to a standstill be able to pass more bills than the most recent legislative session?
The simple answer is that even though they harbored a bitter hatred for their pan-green rivals, pan-blue camp legislators knew they could not simply write off the two-and-a-half months remaining in that legislative session. There were, after all, important bills to be considered -- and they would have been held responsible if the Political Donations Law (
Despite the record low number of bills passed, the just-completed legislative session is not without some modest success. Lawmakers were able to temporarily set aside their hatred and pass an amendment to the Law on the National Assembly's Exercise of Power (
But the last legislative session will be remembered for what was not passed. Only one of the Cabinet's five priority bills (the National Assembly law) got anywhere. The other four never even made it to a first reading.
On the last day of the session, Premier Frank Hsieh (
The legislative gridlock can, for the most part, be attributed to the usual blue-green political wrangling and boycotts. But other, more unique factors were also at play. For instance, the KMT caucus halted cross-party negotiations last month to protest the investigation into party Vice Chairman Chiang Pin-kung's(
Much of the business of crafting legislation also fell by the wayside as a result of the many pan-blue "side jobs," as DPP caucus whip Chen Chin-jun(
The consequences of the continuing legislative impasse could range from minor to far-reaching. But what is alarming is that the virtual paralysis of the lawmaking body has completely halted the functioning of another branch of the government. The Control Yuan -- the government's watchdog -- has literally sat empty for the last five months because the pan-blue camp has repeatedly rejected the list of nominees, primarily out of a dislike of individual candidates.
The legislature's poor performance will have repercussions for Taiwan's strategic military alliance with the US, and could even compromise the nation's security. Retired US air force lieutenant colonel and defense expert Mark Stokes said in an April interview with the Taipei Times that US policymakers might review the way it deals with Taiwan should the special arms procurement budget fail to pass in the legislature. Stokes acknowledged that there was a "very strong likelihood" that the US government will be less willing to approve future requests from Taiwan for the purchase of major weapons systems.
Stokes said that the pan-blue camp's continued boycott of the arms purchase deal and its unwillingness to compromise on the issue signaled "a negative attitude" among the opposition parties with regard to the defense of Taiwan. "Historians are likely to place at least part of the blame on a KMT leadership that sacrificed long-term interests for short-term political gains," he said.
Stokes was correct in asserting that the pan-blue-camp's stonewalling could have serious consequences for the fate of the nation. At times, its complacence and boycotts border on contempt for the legislative process.
It is unfortunate that one of the provisions the National Assembly ratified last week when it passed the package of constitutional amendments was voting itself out of existence. Legislators could learn from the now-defunct decision-making body. Despite the boycotts and media-conscious antics from members of smaller parties, the assembly accomplished its task efficiently and ahead of schedule. At a time when inefficiency is the norm, it's a pity that Taiwan had to lose its second chamber -- a place where things actually get done.
Mark Kennedy is a freelance writer based in Taipei.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS