A legislature is the most respected body to represent the public will of a nation, and lawmakers ought to serve as a voice for the public by fighting for its rights and interests, and protecting people’s welfare. Should executive powers stray from this path by making absurd and infeasible policies that are difficult to implement, the legislature would need to use supervisory powers and make revisions.
However, Taiwan’s legislature is a cacophony of bickering voices, often going off the deep end with its ridiculous demands and imposing roadblocks to governance. Lately, it has been threatening the Executive Yuan with cutting its entire budget if it does not implement the legislature’s demands. Such actions do not have the nation’s welfare in mind at all.
In countries with parliamentary democracy, the executive head is the one whose party holds the majority of seats in the legislature, unless the executive’s coalition dissolves. In presidential or semi-presidential systems, it is sometimes impossible to avoid opposing parties gaining control of different bodies of the government, which invariably leads to conflict.
Each time the US — a presidential system — faces a rejection of the national budget by an opposition-controlled US Congress, it often leads to brinkmanship with a possible government shutdown, with both sides of the aisle often averting disaster right at the 11th hour, and yet they always come out unscathed. In a semi-presidential system like France’s, the president has the constitutional power to dissolve the legislature and call for new parliamentary elections. When the premier and the legislature have disagreements and policies end up in gridlock, the legislature can propose a vote of no confidence and force the premier to resign. The president can then dissolve the legislature and hold legislative elections, relying on the public to decide the nation’s direction.
Taiwan’s system resembles a semi-presidential system. The Constitution states that the legislature has the power to propose a vote of no confidence against the premier with only one-third of the representatives in the legislature required to sign a petition for the motion to move to a formal vote. When the motion formally comes to the floor, more than half of the legislature is needed to vote in favor of the motion for it to pass. The premier would then need to resign and can at the same time request that the president dissolve the legislature and call for legislative elections.
Although these constitutional laws are not perfect, they embody the basic concept of holding and balancing power and legal responsibility. If the legislature is dissatisfied with the Executive Yuan, it could force a vote to get the premier to step down, but it would also have to bear the risk of public ire and scrutiny.
Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) faces legislative gridlock.
Cho hoped to work through give-and-take motions to obtain the legislature’s cooperation or go to the Constitutional Court to request that it issue legal interpretations and arbitrate. If these options are not accepted, he might need to tell the legislature to pass a resolution to sack him from the office.
In other words, Cho’s willingness shows he is not seeking personal glory. He is willing to risk a vote of no confidence and removal from office in the interests of smooth operation of the constitutional system.
Do any lawmakers show such resolve to take on the political responsibility?
If they truly believe the Executive Yuan to be unfit to rule, then they should put forth a vote of no confidence and force Cho to step down. At the same time, Cho could dissolve the legislature and hold new elections, allowing the public to decide the country’s future. If a newly elected legislature were to remain in opposition hands, then the president and new premier would naturally have to follow the public will.
However, that is not what our legislature is doing. The key to all this could be found in Cho’s strength of character. Do opposition lawmakers possess his resolve to walk away from power, or are they only intent on fighting over coveted positions?
Tommy Lin is president of the Formosa Republican Association and the Taiwan United Nations Alliance.
Translated by Tim Smith
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS