The parliamentary system originated in England, where a bicameral system developed. Many countries also adopted the bicameral system when they copied the UK in setting up their parliaments.
There must be a good reason that the bicameral system has spread to many countries. If parliamentary members are unable to control their emotional impulses when debating motions, the nature of majority rule in parliamentary politics might lead to irrational resolutions. However, under a bicameral system, a bill can be enacted only if it is unanimously resolved by both assemblies, chambers or houses, which avoids rashness and carelessness.
A parliament is a lawmaking institution, and is often in a superior position given the nature of its authority — it can use its legislative power to restrain all matters, and its budgetary power can be used to interfere with the activities of the executive office. As a body representing the public, its abuse of power is inevitable.
A parliamentary autocracy is particularly dangerous, as it is a system in which the parliament is a collegial body and cannot be held accountable. This is especially true of a unicameral system. In contrast, the bicameral system aims to weaken the power of parliament to prevent parliamentary autocracy. This is why it has been adopted by many countries.
THREE-YEAR TERMS
Originally, the term of office for Legislative Yuan members was three years, with the ability to stand for re-election, but their election should be completed within three months before the expiration of their term of office, Article 65 of the Constitution states.
However, in the seventh Constitutional amendment in 2005, the length of their term was extended to four years, as seen in Article 4 of Additional Articles of the Constitution (中華民國憲法增修條文). Increasing the power of legislators makes the unicameral system more vulnerable to abuse of power.
As elected representatives, lawmakers are responsible for monitoring the government’s administration on the public’s behalf. They should be clean and self-respecting. Yet regrettably, cases of “lobbying for legislation” used to be frequent.
Commentators say that to prevent corruption among legislators, the most important thing is to shorten their term in office. If the legislators’ terms are extended and their powers are increased, their campaigns would have a high rate of return on investment, which would encourage election bribery. After being elected, they would inevitably seek to amend laws to fulfill the promises they made to their supporters.
The duty of these public representatives is only to supervise the administration of the government. Therefore, their terms do not need to be four years. Instead, legislators’ terms in office should be modeled on the two-year terms offered by the US House of Representatives.
US SYSTEM
In the US, voters have a clear idea of their representatives’ performance. Competent representatives do not need to spend lots of money to be re-elected — and there is no reason to do so, because they have limited powers and short terms, so there is no point in bribing them. This is the great insight of the founding fathers of the US.
To avoid election bribery and the improper exchange of interests in legislating, Taiwan should improve its system, starting with, most importantly, shortening the term length for legislators.
Tseng Chao-chang is a former chairman of the Taiwan Bar Association.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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