On May 9 when the Taipei Society published its latest assessment of the legislature, many legislators who were given a poor rating expressed their dissatisfaction with the results -- a reaction the society expected. The Taipei Society's goal is to not only criticize the political performance of legislators, but also to encourage them to be more politically active, to show more leadership and improve our democracy.
In the current political climate of staunch partisanship, implementing effective oversight of the legislature is particularly challenging. To avoid accusations of subjective criticism, a more objective evaluation method was adopted. Evaluation targets included negative and positive benchmarks.
Negative benchmarks included the following: The first was lack of committee attendance. The average sign-in rate for the two sessions was less than 50 percent. Signing in does not necessarily mean that one is professional or serious, but attending meetings is the most basic demand made on committee members. Attendance both at single committee meetings and at joint meetings was included in the calculation.
The second was secondary employment in commercial enterprises. That certain members of the legislature hold positions in private firms does not necessarily mean there will be conflicts of interest, but there is an increased risk. There are 41 legislators holding second jobs -- fewer than in the last legislature.
The third was improper conduct and language. These include engaging in verbal or physical fights, invading other people's privacy, not rationally discussing draft laws, being under suspicion abusing their position, improper allegations, frequenting inappropriate establishments, and being under investigation for malpractice. Perhaps conflict between the political parties has a great deal to do with so much of the improper conduct in the two sessions.
According to these negative benchmarks, we compiled a list of people with a failing grade, consisting of people who made two of the above benchmarks. Most of these were members of the Non-Partisan Solidarity Union or independent legislators.
Positive benchmarks included the following: First was the sign-in rate for committees, with a benchmark of 75 percent. Second was the sign-in rate for legislative sessions, with a benchmark of 90 percent. The third was the number of bills proposed, in which 10 proposals was considered active. Quality of proposals was not taken into account.
The Taipei Society compiled a list of legislators who showed good conduct, including a high sign-in rate at committee meetings, no negative benchmarks and a high number of proposals.
Because of limited time and manpower, there is still room for improvement in our assessment report, including matters like whether we should take the quality of proposals into consideration, whether we should differentiate between various grades of improper conduct, whether we should make a separate assessment for the caucus conveners or whether we should add an assessment of the political parties.
Some legislators believe that their language has to be sharp while representing the basic viewpoints of their political party. The Taipei Society believes that even with a extreme point of view, it's possible to express oneself in a civilized manner. If politicians are to behave as examples to the community, they should use some moderation when making public remarks.
Lastly, the Taipei Society calls on citizens to monitor the legislature and demand quick passage of the annual budget, which should be given the highest priority.
Hawang Shiow-duan is chair of the Taipei Society and professor in Soochow University's political science department.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS