In the wake of an incident in which Department of Health Minister Yeh Ching-chuan (葉金川) was grabbed by the neck in a scuffle between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, lawmakers proposed a bill that would have public opinion polls determine bonuses for ministers. If the bill passes the legislature, ministers with low ratings would likely not receive a bonus.
The KMT may nominally have gained total power, but this development illustrates how the relationship between the legislative and the executive remains unstable.
The Constitution states that the legislature’s primary responsibility is to supervise the executive. In representative democracies, lawmakers are elected to monitor government performance, making this an inherent duty of the legislature. If a minister’s political performance does not satisfy public demands, legislators can respond using their powers.
Public opinion polls can, of course, be used as a reference, but in an increasingly complicated modern society, excessive reliance on polls invites inaccuracy and is shortsighted. Doing so would return supervisory responsibilities to the public who voted the lawmakers in to perform this duty in the first place.
If ministerial political performance can be punished or rewarded through opinion polls, why should the public waste time electing lawmakers?
We must not forget that legislators are also public servants, employed by the public in another way to supervise the public servants in the executive.
The problem with polling assessments is that the public could turn on the legislature and find that it is not performing any better than the Cabinet.
If the executive can be evaluated in this way, with the media and lawmakers demanding that ministers’ salaries be cut or that they be replaced altogether, then what about the legislators?
After the Democratic Progressive Party took power in 2000, the legislative and the executive were in direct opposition — yet this continues today.
On TV, we see how lawmakers fiercely criticize ministers if they raise their voice even slightly during a question-and-answer session — even though lawmakers can use the most violent language with impunity.
For example, a minister who has a US green card is severely criticized, while lawmakers with possible dual citizenship are not properly investigated.
Similarly, Yeh could only quietly go to the hospital after the neck-grabbing incident as legislators refused to apologize for the attack. Ministers don’t dare hit back.
The Cabinet and the legislature should supervise each other. Today, however, the executive doesn’t do much in this regard and ministers restrain themselves as the legislature acts arrogantly.
This strange phenomenon makes one feel that the KMT isn’t in complete control but rather divided into an “executive KMT” and a “legislative KMT.”
The legislative party threatens the executive party with public opinion, hoping to use opinion polls to cut back salaries for ministers who supposedly shirk responsibilities.
At the same time, these lawmakers have declared Citizen Congress Watch — a non-partisan civic oversight group — persona non grata because it is perceived as a threat to their activities.
It is clearly acceptable for legislators to supervise others, but not for others to supervise legislators.
If the “legislative KMT” is not brought to heel, things will soon get out of hand.
Chiang Ya-chi is a doctoral student in the School of Law at the University of Leeds.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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