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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS