An article in Foreign Policy recently included Taiwan’s legislature in a list of the world’s most incompetent legislatures. Lawyer C.V. Chen (陳長文) responded by publishing an article in a Chinese-language newspaper earlier this month calling for reform of the electoral system in the hope that that would improve the legislature’s abilities.
If we’re looking to legislative incompetence, the electoral system is just the tip of the iceberg. The main problem is arguably the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s manipulation and abuse of the legislature. Let’s review some of the more miserable cases of the past.
Before Taiwan and China signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) last year, the public questioned the agreement and the opposition remained skeptical. According to Article 6 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), this kind of agreement should be sent to the legislature for deliberation.
In addition, Article 43 of the Constitution states that a treaty or a significant national event must be presented to the legislature for confirmation.
However, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that the legislature could discuss the ECFA, but could not change it.
Surprisingly, Ma justified his conclusion by citing the Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 329, which states: “Agreements concluded between Taiwan and mainland China are not international agreements to which this interpretation relates. It should also be noted that whether or not these agreements should be sent to the Legislation [sic] Yuan for deliberation is not included in this interpretation.”
In fact, it was the principle of the separation of constitutional powers that led the grand justices not to offer a judicial interpretation on the issue of highly political cross-strait agreements.
After Ma’s statement, the legislature submitted the ECFA to a second reading without first allowing the related committees to review the agreement. It was then passed in a matter of minutes, leaving no room for discussion.
That was the moment the soul of Taiwan’s legislature died.
Going back a little further, the KMT was in hysterics after losing the presidency in 2000. Intransigent KMT legislators then for three years refused to exercise their power of consent to approve certain Control Yuan member nominees. That was followed by a another constitutional interpretation by the grand justices, No. 632, which stated: “The Constitution does not allow for the event in which either the President or the Legislative Yuan fails to nominate or consent to the nomination of candidates so that the Control Yuan cannot exercise its power or function, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the constitutional system.”
In the end, the problem was solved when the KMT regained power in 2008 and nominated its own Control Yuan members, allowing the Control Yuan to resume its functions.
There are too many examples to even remember, including the US arms procurements that the KMT used to block, but now supports.
If we look at the legislatures in most democracies, they at least abide by the rules of the game and procedural justice despite fierce struggles among parties and lawmakers. They still respect the legislative minority and engage in negotiations, and they communicate, and compromise.
These qualities no longer exist in Taiwan’s legislature. Whose fault is that?
Chen Rong-jye is a legal scholar.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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