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
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