Taiwan Today

Yet the election proved to be significant in other ways. For one thing, there was a discernibly new tone in multiparty politics, one that emphasized competition over confrontation. Moreover, since the election, there seems to be a growing consensus that all political institutions need to become more sophisticated in order to meet the country's needs—as well as satisfy the public.

But what are the highest priorities for strengthening civic society? The political system? The parties? The branches of government? To discuss these and related questions, the Free China Review held a post-election seminar on December 31, 1992.

The participants were John C. Kuan (關中), a KMT member of the Legislative Yuan; Huang Huang-hsiung (黃煌雄), a DPP member of the Legislative Yuan; Ju Gau-jeng (朱高正), former chairman of the Chinese Social Democratic Party and now an independent legislator in Legislative Yuan; and Lu Ya-li (呂亞力), a professor in the Department of Political Science at National Taiwan University.

Excerpts follow:

All political scientists would agree that our political culture is activated and defined by elections. However, I personally feel that we have put too much emphasis on elections while neglecting the cultivation of a civic society. By civic society I mean a society with forceful and ef­fective civic organizations which can serve as pres­sure groups between elections.

In past decades, the ruling Kuomintang (KMT, or Nationalist Party of China) controlled political power and monopolized the various political re­sources. Although general elections have been held regularly, people have in fact had no choice but to select from a list of KMT candidates. Even after a real opposition party emerged in 1987, the KMT has won all the elections.

Against this political background, much re­search on voting behavior has indicated that 70 percent of the voters have been candidate-oriented rather than party or politically orientated. The De­cember 19 election was the first time, in my opin­ion, that the candidates' party affiliation or political views made a difference, though not as yet very dis­tinctive. However, it was a giant step forward as far as the development of Taiwan's political culture is concerned.

Second, elections are a participatory process, but past elections only witnessed partial participa­tion because they were held under authoritarian, one-party rule. Many voters were also guided by outside influences. A genuine democracy should have mature participation, and we saw that the De­cember 19 election involved full participation. Our voters, particularly those in Taipei, made choices of their own free will. This marks real progress.

Third, in years past, owing to ideological dif­ferences between the KMT and DPP (the Democratic Progressive Party, the main opposition party), elec­tions seemed to be a zero-sum competition. But now, voters have become more mature, and down-to-earth issues have replaced more abstract and ideological ones as the focus of their major concern. For example, last December almost every candidate advocated that we should all make the development of this island our first priority. As long as we do this, we can make a substantial contribution to a healthy political ecology.

Fourth, although the government has been pro­moting democracy in Taiwan for more than forty years by holding elections at both local and central levels, the real policymakers have been technocrats rather than elected representatives. It is undeniable that many technocrats have been competent and have made remarkable contributions to Taiwan's economy. But I believe their time has passed. In the future, decisions will be made by those who have been directly elected by the people, and government policies will hence meet with fewer challenges.

I dare not say that technocrats will be replaced completely with political elites created by elections, but at least the two groups will be on an equal foot­ing. In the December election, some political appoint­ees [such as former Finance Minister Wang Chien-shien and former Environmental Protection Administration Chief Jaw Shau-kong] resigned their jobs and threw themselves into campaigning for the Legislative Yuan and won the highest number of votes in their electoral districts. This phenomenon will have a great impact on Taiwan's political culture.

Finally, the democratization of the KMT is closely related to the "struggle culture" created and embodied by the DPP; the more democratic the KMT becomes, the less the DPP will struggle and resist.

Concerning the impact of this election on Tai­wan's party politics, I think we have witnessed a two-party contest, whereas a two-party system is yet to emerge. Meanwhile, there is little ma­neuvering space for a third party, at least at present and in the near future, unless both the KMT and the DPP become seriously divided between themselves. Nevertheless, these two parties will assuredly un­dergo restructuring during the ongoing process of political competition.

The KMT has made several attempts to reform itself, but in vain. In light of its setback last Decem­ber, however, if the KMT does not pursue complete democratization immediately, the DPP will replace the KMT as the ruling party. There is no time for pro­crastination. After all, a two-party competition is far better than a two-party struggle.

The DPP, in my opinion, will become more re­sponsible. In the past, the DPP used struggle as the means to maximize its strength and justify its actions. But now, being more adequately represented in the new legislature, it can introduce bills based on its electoral mandate and even acquire enough votes to veto bills. It will thus act more responsibil­ity to win the trust of the people.

Hence, with the KMT becoming more demo­cratic and the DPP more responsible, the political environment will be favorable for the development of party politics and a mature two-party system.

On the other hand, I hope—and there is already such a tendency—that both the KMT and the DPP will become internally created parties [This is a reference to party structure. In an externally created party, a central party committee (as in the case of both the KMT and DPP) makes the political decisions that are then passed on its party members in the leg­islature to carry out. In an internally created party, the party members in the legislature themselves determine policies and act on them.] In this respect, the DPP will probably precede the KMT, because a majority of the DPP's central standing committee members have been elected to the Legislative Yuan, and this will enable the DPP to formulate its policies right in the Legislature. As for the KMT, its policymaking body is still the central standing com­mittee. The KMT will lose the confidence of the peo­ple if it lags too far behind, so it must address this problem.

Speaking of parliamentary politics, in the past, the opposition often resorted to street demon­strations in the struggle against the government and the KMT. But now the DPP has enough seats to check and balance the KMT in parliament. How­ ever, if their debates still focus on ideological is­sues, disputes will drag on endlessly. Both sides should debate the policies the public really cares about. As each party is supported by a large number of people, they will find some common ground on many issues and will have to cooperate to enhance the public welfare.

When contending views arise, both sides can present their own perspective and then negotiate on an option which is acceptable to both. Polarization is not necessarily a bad thing, it can also create more room for negotiations which will lead in the end to a more balanced outlook.

How will the December election affect democratization? The election has ended the era of a KMT-dominated political scene. The KMT may even have to pre­pare to step down. And if it still refuses to democratize thoroughly, this outcome will arrive earlier than expected.

As for the DPP, in addition to being more responsible, it must push for further democratization in Taiwan and win more support from the people, thus forcing the KMT to be more democratic.

Currently in Taiwan, two sensitive issues exist: national identity and provincialism. For example, in the December election, DPP candidates all called for the resignation of Premier Hau Pei-tsun. Provincial­ism was the principle motive, and I deem it inappro­priate to raise such issues. An opposition should criticize the policies of the ruling party rather than indulge in attacks on any specific individual.

Democracy entails responsibility. The DPP has advocated that Taiwan should set up a parliamen­tary system, and I agree with this. But after the elec­tion, many DPP legislators now support a presidential system, saying that only when the local people can directly elect the president can Taiwan be called a true democracy. However, as I pointed out in a debate with DPP legislators Chen Shui-bian and Hsieh Chang-ting, under the existing system the president holds great power because there is no institution which can effectively check and balance the power his office entitles him.

Although people have the legal right to recall the president, among the 176,000 officials and rep­resentatives elected during Taiwan's four decades of election history, how many have been recalled? It is also said that the president's term can be short­ened from six to four years. But if the elected presi­dent is a dictator, even one day is too long. As for the premier, no matter how powerful he might be, he has to be responsible to the Legislative Yuan.

Here we come to the central issue. Any politi­cal system must be held responsible to the people. Democracy without responsibility or unbridled power is unequivocally undemocratic. There should be no compromise on this issue. How can Taiwan achieve political stability? The global trend is very clear: democracy is a must. Taiwan has to commit itself to democracy as does the KMT and the DPP.

Institutionalization and the rule of law are the government's first priorities. Rule by personal pref­erence is detrimental to national security and social stability. Even the China issue should be resolved by means of peaceful evolution. We do not wish to go to war; we want and require peace and stability. So controversial issues must be resolved step by step through reasoned debate, and the new Legisla­tive Yuan should serve as a debating forum for reaching a consensus on democratization, institu­tionalization, and peace.

Furthermore, democratization means plural­ism, and pluralism inevitably leads to factionalism. The KMT leadership was lacking in good sense when it demanded that all factions in the legislature be dissolved. Show me any political entity, Chinese or foreign, that has no factions, and I will resign to­ morrow.

It is only natural that different subgroups inter­act to push the whole group forward and keep it alive. The problem is simply how to make these subgroups operate in a healthy way, conducting fair competition, reasoned debates, and responsible interpellations. If there is a leadership crisis inside the KMT today. I believe it is because some party leaders suggest a monistic way of leadership. They are going against the tide.

As for the DPP, its crisis lies in that it tends to politicize all ideological issues. Politics should be separated from ideology. Besides, the means to keep Taiwan progressive and enhance the quality of life is through implementing effective public poli­cies, maintaining social order, promoting the rule of law, and eventually realizing social justice. These are the foundations of Taiwan's stability and have nothing to do with ideology. So we must strive for the rule of law and oppose special privilege.

The outcome of the December 19 election also indicates that the people will reject the unfair and the unjust, and thus can we have confidence in the future of Taiwan.

I believe that in order to ensure the healthy de­velopment of our political parties, we must set down the rules of the game. Although we have made considerable progress in this respect in past decades, two issues remain to be resolved—the mass media still fails to take a neutral stand in its reporting, and the KMT still controls the resources of the government. I am confident that the situation will gradually be rectified, but the opposition certainly hopes resolve these problems as soon as pos­sible. I suggest that all parties bring forward the issues and solve them through open discussion. This would promote fair play in the game.

Secondly, the DPP basically advocates a direct presidential election, a three-branch government, and a single parliament system. As it has garnered nearly one-third of the total seats in the Legislative Yuan, it can more effectively push for the realiza­tion of these objectives. Some people therefore pre­dict that the new legislature will witness even more disruption and rowdiness. But I beg to differ. Since we all wish to see the legislature function well, no one would maliciously block this vital channel of communication.

For the DPP, its policymaking center will move to the Legislative Yuan since most of its elite has been elected to it. The KMT, on the other hand, must face the fact that it can no longer dominate political resources and its central standing committee cannot continue to control everything. In the past, deci­sions were made by the central standing committee and then referred to KMT legislators, who would just cast their vote as instructed. Times have changed, and the KMT has to pursue further democratization while making adjustments to cope with the changes.

Concerning the relations between the Execu­tive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan, I agree with Legislator Huang that neither the executive branch nor the KMT ever really thought highly of the Leg­islative Yuan. In the past, after the end of a legislator's term, he or she would be assigned to a senior party post, and perhaps later on to a ministerial post. And most people regarded this as promotion. To­day, however, we see ministers resign to run for a seat in the legislature. What a turnaround! But it is true that a legislator can do many things, while a minister often feels frustrated and powerless.

The relations between the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan are not on an equal footing. During the period of national mobilization against the Communist rebellion, policies were made by the powerful Executive Yuan, and the legislature only endorsed them. Under a real parliamentary system, policies should be formulated in the parlia­ment, while the executive branch only carries them out. From now on, we shall head in this direction.

The Executive Yuan should be responsible to the Legislative Yuan, and, as stipulated in the Con­stitution [Article 57], if the Executive Yuan deems a resolution passed by the Legislative Yuan difficult to carry out, it should request the Legislative Yuan to reconsider it. If after reconsideration, two­ thirds of the members of the legislature present at the meeting uphold the original resolution, the pre­mier shall either abide by the resolution or resign from office.

Furthermore, since the appointment of a pre­mier takes effect only after the Legislative Yuan gives its consent, I believe the Legislative Yuan should have a say in the nomination of the new pre­mier. We could even allow legislators to nominate the premier in due course. If there are several possible candidates, each can be asked to put forward his nominations to the Cabinet so legislators can draw comparisons before casting their votes. So why don't we develop new procedures of our own more creatively and with more imagination? Meanwhile, liaison work between the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan should be strength­ened. Instead of giving the responsibility to a sen­ior Executive Yuan counselor, as is the case at present, the Executive Yuan should appoint a per­son of vice-ministerial rank to attend to this impor­tant mission.

As for reforming the Legislative Yuan, strengthening its various committees should be at the top of the agenda because the inefficiency of legislative sessions always seems to result from the dysfunction of its committees. Also, it is important to upgrade the quality of the Yuan's staff and facili­ties. Legislators need professional personnel and need to be furnished with sufficient background in­formation in order to effectively scrutinize the statutory or budgetary bills.

Concerning the relations between the Legisla­tive Yuan and the National Assembly, the ROC Constitution makes it quite clear that the National Assembly exercises political power on behalf of the whole body of citizens, while the five government branches serve as the highest national administra­tive organs. So the functions of the two bodies are different.

But the Council of Grand Justices made a big interpretation mistake in 1957 when it ruled that the Legislative Yuan, the Control Yuan, and the National Assembly are all parliaments. This interpre­tation was in violation of the Constitution. The Legislative Yuan and the National Assembly should respect each other's functions as prescribed in the Constitution.

With regard to amending the Constitution, the Legislative Yuan should also fulfill its duty. The Constitution stipulates [in Article 172, Clause 2] that a constitutional amendment may be drawn up by the Legislative Yuan and submitted to the Na­tional Assembly by way of referendum. What does parliament signify? It signifies the highest law­ making body of a nation, and that is what the Legis­lative Yuan should strive to be. [Since February 1993] the Control Yuan has become a quasi-judiciary agency, so we are moving towards a single-parlia­ment system. The Legislative Yuan should also exer­cise its function to meet the demands of the people.

Finally, I would like to point out three things regarding the functioning of the Legislative Yuan. First, consulta­tion is vital. Consultation between the KMT and the DPP in the Legisla­tive Yuan needs to be institutionalized. Democracy is party politics, and that should also be reflected in the Legislative Yuan.

Second, consultation on policy issues at high levels inside the Legislative Yuan is also necessary. For example, the Yuan's president, secretary­ general and party whips should meet regularly to discuss relevant issues.

And third, at the level of the various commit­tees [which consider bills, resolutions, and petitions referred to them], the standing orders, procedure and agenda must be institutionalized. Disputes among parties on ideological or party differences should be avoided. Otherwise, the examination of bills will be paralyzed and the general public will be the greatest loser.

There are currently more than six hundred bills pending in the legislature. Based on past experience it will take eight Legislative Yuan sessions, or four years, to examine and pass them all. The Legisla­tive Yuan really has to concentrate on this work.

But it is important that we set out our priorities concerning the examination of bills through bipar­tisan consultations. Consultation includes discus­sion, debate and voting. If no consensus can be reached by the first two ways, we can resort to vote casting. The best thing about voting is that all leg­islators must reflect the viewpoints of their electorates, who will see how they vote. In addition, the Speaker should remain neutral politically to minimize disputes, and standing orders should be properly revised to suit actual requirements.

In addition to self-discipline, the Legislative Yuan should be placed under public scrutiny. We should encourage civic organizations to monitor its operation—the more the better. Thus, every legis­lator's performance will be in the public eye.

Moreover, the Legislative Yuan's efficiency needs to be enhanced. We have seen too many quarrels and fistfights with no real progress in examining legislation. As I mentioned earlier, the various committees should be rejuvenated. Our first priority is to revise the Yuan's Organic Law to re­ duce the number of committees. For example, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Committee could be combined with the Foreign Affairs Committee. If necessary, a committee can be divided into several subcommittees, and ad hoc committees can be set up to deal with special issues. In addition, legisla­tors should be allowed to sit on more than one com­mittee.

Efforts should also be made to discourage leg­islators from serving on committees whose func­tions do not match their expertise in order to avoid adversely affecting the operation of the committee and the quality of legislation produced.

We should also introduce a seniority system in the committees, that is, the co-chairmen of each committee should be reserved for senior legislators so that elections will not hinder the continuity of scrutinizing bills. In addition, the proportion of each party in the Legislative Yuan should be re­flected in the seats of committee co-chairmen. For example, if there are ten committees, six co-chair­men seats should be taken by KMT legislators, three by DPP legislators and one by a non-partisan.

The functions of committees should also be strengthened. We often see many legislators hold their tongue in committee meetings and speak up only in legislative sessions. This is simply for show. [The Organic Law of the Committees of the Legis­lative Yuan stipulates that "Any committee mem­ber who dissents from any committee decision may reserve the right to speak up in legislative ses­sions."] Steps should be taken to restrict the number of legislators who may reserve the right to speak up in sessions, otherwise the committee's function will be impeded. Each committee must review legislation very carefully so that the legislative session does not have to go through the details, but can focus on gen­eral issues or policy debates. To resolve all these problems, the revision of the Organic Law is essen­tial.

We must create a political culture of level­headed and well-reasoned debate and make our meetings as efficient as possible. To this end, leg­islators should first of all behave in an orderly man­ner and avoid filibustering. They also should be required to attend committee meetings and legisla­tive sessions as often as possible, in order to truly understand what is happening and responsibly ex­amine legislation.

Meanwhile, in examining legislation, legisla­tors should be more prudent in order to ensure the quality of their lawmaking. They can hold public hearings on specific issues, commission academic institutions to conduct relevant research, or refer draft bills to specialized institutions for their suggestions, thus extensively soliciting public opinion. In brief, work must be specialized and legislators should be duty-bound to fulfill their electoral mandates.

In conclusion, democratization and institution­alization both in Taiwan and in the KMT have yet to be fully achieved. But I am convinced that the Legislative Yuan will play a leading role in our politi­cal development. The December 19 election has transformed the political environment in the Legis­lative Yuan and has moved it in a healthy direction. Legislators should commit themselves to reflecting public opinion, advocating sound policies, and su­pervising government administration. Moreover, they should make the best of their right to introduce bills, rather than just passively perform their duty of scrutinizing legislation. Only in this way can the Legislative Yuan fully exert itself on behalf of the people. Taiwan has already secured a solid founda­tion for democracy, but greater efforts are needed to institutionalize it. I think we have discussed this enough. The hour is at hand! Now is the time for action. ▪

The election has made two-party politics be­tween the DPP and KMT more structured. The DPP's major job over the past few years has been to establish two-party politics. It has obviously mate­rialized in recent years, espe­cially with this year's elections. Unless major discords arise within the two leading parties, two-party politics will become the pattern for quite some time.

As for the smaller parties, it will be very diffi­cult for them to play an influential role. So the elec­tion taught us a lesson: in the future, the two parties will become the two major powers on the country's political stage.

Concerning the two parties, I think the DPP will develop toward an internally created party. [This is a reference to party structure. In an externally created party, a central standing committee (as in the case of both the KMT and DPP) makes the political decisions that are then passed on to its party mem­bers in the legislature to carry out. In an internally created party, the party members in the legislature themselves determine policies and act on them.] That is only natural. The DPP will have influence in leading the country's party politics. At the same time, there will be some new challenges for the DPP because it is the first time that there are so many DPP members in the parliament.

I am sure that the DPP will be more responsible in the parliament in order to meet the expectations of the general public. It is widely known that the DPP began as a party to check and balance the ruling party's performance. The first DPP declaration was actually written by Legislator Ju Gau-jeng and me. At that time we called our party a shadow cabinet. It sounded grander than it was in reality.

But it would be more realistic to call the party a shadow cabinet from now on. That's why I said the DPP will be a more responsible party in the Legislative Yuan after the election; it now has the power and ca­pacity to be so. Besides, all DPP members in the Leg­islative Yuan are full-time legislators. This is not the case with the KMT legislators, who usually have sev­eral other jobs. As a result, they might not pay as much attention as the DPP legislators to legislative work. The DPP legislators will also expect themselves, as members of the shadow cabinet, to perform better in the parliament. The era in which the KMT made all the country's decisions has ended.

People still divide the DPP into different factions. In the past there were various opinions within the party on the issue of Taiwan independence. Some DPP members had very clear positions on the "one China, one Taiwan" policy; some did not. But most have by now reached an agreement. "One China, one Taiwan" is a formula the whole party can accept. I believe this political appeal was a great help to our DPP candidates in the recent elec­tion. Within the party, there is almost no disagreement about this. So I don't think there are really any remaining faction problems within the DPP.

In the past there was room for other people to spread rumors and to create friction among party members, but not any more. However, there will be some changes in the party's structure in order to meet public expectations.

The election was helpful in ensuring the security of society. Many people who had lost faith in Taiwan changed their minds after this elec­tion. In addition, some people said that as a result of the election politics was being polarized. But I do not have this feeling, judging from my experi­ence of being involved with politics for more than twenty years and of being oppressed, followed, spied on, and imprisoned. From a historical view­ point and in terms of Taiwan's political develop­ment, I don't see Taiwan's politics developing toward two radically different directions. On the contrary, I think the election will only help the country develop further into a truly democratic one.

From the results of this election, peo­ple now know that in order to be elected candidates must have public support and have experience work­ing with the public. This election in­spired us to think more deeply. I believe even the problem of unification with mainland China has become less controversial. Now, nobody dares to talk about immediate unification. Very few people talked about unification in the election.

The other day I told someone from the China Evening Daily that in the past the KMT tried to po­litically dominate Taiwan people in the name of protecting the Republic of China. That kind of feel­ing is understandable and should be appreciated. There are still some complex feelings between mainlanders and Taiwanese, but I don't think this will continue to be a serious problem.

I would like to add something about the influ­ence of the election on Taiwan's political develop­ment. First of all, as a DPP member I believe that the DPP will listen to all kinds of opinions, whatever they might be. But we do have our own per­spectives. Secondly, the party has received a lot of unfair comments from society about its perform­ance both in the past and currently. True, the party has used some unusual approaches during its devel­opment, but it has always tried to promote the es­tablishment of a fair political system.

The party has no reason to avoid the job of helping develop democracy. But there are still two areas in which the DPP has not been treated fairly, and we will continue to fight for their rectification. First, the KMT still controls most of the media. Sec­ond, the existence of economic bonds has transformed the economic superpower into a political superpower [this refers to the KMT-owned busi­nesses that generate funds for the party]. These are the two things that make party politics in Taiwan so unbalanced. Obviously, these problems must be solved to ensure fairness. The KMT must accept the rules of a normal democratic country in its control of the mass media. In addition, the KMT must with­ draw from the economic arena.

How has the election influenced the political system? According to the Constitution, the politi­cal system will no doubt head in the direction of a parliamentary system. However, the DPP advocates direct presidential elections. How can this be rec­onciled? One way is to make the presidential of­fice a limited one. Secondly, under the current political structure, the relationship between the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan is unequal. There are many factors contributing to this. One is that many people involved have rather powerful backgrounds.

After the election, I believe that many cabinet members' attitudes will change quite a lot and the relationship between the two branches will be­ come more equal. Premier Hau should set a con­stitutional example by resigning. [Because the premier (who heads the Executive Yuan) is nomi­nated by the president and approved by the Legislative Yuan. some people advocate that the cabinet should be dissolved after each new parliamentary election so that the new legislators have the oppor­tunity to express their opinions on who should be the premier.] The first time (was elected legislator, my first duty was to ask for the resignation of the cabinet. About six years ago, after being reelected, I requested the resignation of Premier Yu Kuo-hwa. It has been eleven years since then, and I am still asking the premier to do so. Accord­ing to the spirit of the Constitution, I believe that this must be done.

It seems like we don't have to fight [for the res­ignation of the cabinet] a third time since the KMT has already started the work by themselves. If that develops well, it will show completely that the cur­ rent stage of constitutional rule favors a parliamen­tary system. Then the president must respect the cabinet, and his role will need to be reconsidered.

As I just said, we support the direct election of the president and a single parliament. Therefore, there are still quite a lot of jobs for the DPP to do in constitutional reform. We respect historical figures at certain stages of history, but we also believe we have the responsibility of carrying out our role in history.

The most important meaning of this election is that many political figures will be terminating their roles. If President Lee Teng-hui is able to bring an end to the old system, there is some posi­tive meaning from a historical viewpoint. It all depends on whether he wants to continue the sys­tem, expand the system, or terminate the system.

According to the DPP's viewpoint, if a single parliament exists, the present National Assembly would become the last one. I think that the Legisla­tive Yuan will turn toward becoming a single par­liament, while the Executive Yuan will become a genuine cabinet. Relationships between them will become intense only during the time when National Assembly is held. The National Assembly has be­ come a volcano which could explode anytime. But it was the KMT that created the volcano.

I hope that the DPP will not only check and balance party politics in Taiwan, but also be a reliable party. I believe these are the two most important directions for the DPP. Therefore, the DPP will make the best use of this unprecedented opportunity to serve the public in the Legislative Yuan.

At the same time, there will be more space for DPP legislators to express their political ideals. Par­liamentary operations will also face new chal­lenges. At the same time, the KMT will have to undergo some internal changes. The KMT simply has no choice but to change, or else it won't be able to carry out its policies smoothly.

Although the Legislative Yuan will have equal status with the Executive Yuan for the first time, the former is still not fully prepared for its new role. I remember when I was first elected a legislator, each one had less than half an assistant. Now a legislator is allowed to have one assistant, which is still not enough.

I think the ratio between legislators and assist­ ants should be 1:5 or1:10. The Legislative Yuan should expand its personnel. Currently there are about 160 legislators, so the organization should have 1,000 to 2,000 staff assistants. There should also be enough people in the committees—specialists who can deal with budget and planning. Having experts work for the Legislative Yuan will become a natural trend in the future. In this re­spect, the Executive Yuan has not done enough. It intends to add only one or two people to work for each legislator.

Previously, the Legislative Yuan did not have the budget for hiring so many people. Now the soft­ ware—the staff people—has become a must. They must be part of the system in the Legislative Yuan. We must have experts to help deal with statistics and budget so the Legislative Yuan will be able to review them more confidently. This is urgent. We can actually start when we review this year's budget.

Concerning the committees in the Legislative Yuan, I agree with Legislator Kuan. The number of committees could be decreased. Instead, some smaller ad hoc groups can be set up under the com­mittees. There also should be more leeway in the number of committees legislators can serve on. We could serve on at least two committees. This would require modifying meeting processes and structural regulations in the Legislative Yuan.

I also agree that legislators should be super­vised more carefully. There are four levels of gov­ernment organization from local governments to the central government [local, county, provincial, central]. If there were only three levels, then prob­lems could be solved more efficiently. ▪

There are many optimistic inter­pretations about the DPP's success in this election. But from my position as an outsider, I would like to call attention to some phenomena in the political culture related to this election.

First, some members of the KMT who entered the election without the party's nomination won the highest number of votes. Some of them were former high-ranking government officials, such as Jaw Shau-kong and Wang Chien-shien. The deep­ rooted belief within the KMT that it is difficult or impossible to be elected without the party's support was totally debunked in this election. This will have a great impact on the democratization within the KMT in the future.

Second, another conviction was also shattered. In the past, it was considered impossible for a DPP candidate to be elected if he did not gain the party's support; it was also thought impossible if one was once a DPP member but later quit the party. But in this election, Lin Cheng-chieh [independent legis­lator] and I were elected with high vote totals. From this we know that in addition to the KMT and the DPP, there is still much room for outsiders. If you have the public's support, you can be elected with­ out the support of either of the two major parties. This fact will have a tremendous impact on the fu­ture development of party politics in Taiwan.

The number one reason for the KMT's poor showing in this election was its nomination strat­egy. The standard used by the heads of the KMT's local branches to nominate its members as candi­dates was based on their potential to be elected rather than previous parliamentary performance. To put it more directly, it was considered more im­portant to have local faction connections and sup­port or the ability to buy votes. But the election results show that many "golden oxen" candidates [those who appeared to have no other credentials besides wealth] were not elected as expected. Some spent up to US$20 million, but still were defeated.

The DPP succeeded in this election not because its plat­form has won increasing sup­port, but because many voters could not accept the candi­dates nominated by the KMT. Imagine a university profes­sor voting for an underworld figure! How could he do that? Therefore, the vote distribu­tion pattern of the KMT no longer works.

Among the 101 newly-elected KMT legislators, there are very few who plan to work as full-time legislators. Most of them are political figures with distinct local factional connections. They may not actively participate in the legislative sessions. Even if they do occasionally, they may not be able to say much on a special issue. On the contrary, there are many newly-elected OPP legislators who are aggres­sively outspoken.

The KMT has to depend on the New KMT Alli­ance, a faction within the party, to fight for the right to speak. But there are disagreements within the central leadership of the KMT on how to treat the New KMT Alliance. Therefore, in this election, even if members of the New KMT Alliance were nomi­nated by the KMT, they suffered some party hin­drances during the campaign, which indicates deep-rooted friction.

Clearly, there are certain things to be con­cerned about, but I'm not sure that the DPP is aware of the situation yet. Success has gone to its head. DPP members believe that their party is now sup­ported by the public, which also supports party poli­tics and democracy. This is not true. The DPP was successful because the public found the KMT inad­equate and they were forced to turn to the DPP. People just hoped that the DPP would gain enough strength to urge the KMT to speed up reforms, as well as expose more illegal party activities. There­fore, Mr. Huang's views about the DPP's continuing support from the public are too optimistic.

The most important thing about party politics is that it can gather, integrate, and reflect upon the public's wishes and concerns, then translate them into government policies and laws. Only when this is realized will competition among parties be bene­ficial to public welfare. Each party has to propose plans that can win public support. In this way, party politics will improve public welfare and assist na­tional progress.

The DPP mistakenly expects to gain power by means of party politics, but the DPP still doesn't know what ruling power entails. For example, to my disappointment, in the DPP candidates' cam­paign speeches, the issue of Taiwan's independ­ence was often over emphasized. In a speech of two to three hours, the leading idea of many a DPP speaker was that he would like to be a dignified Tai­wanese. This is really sickening.

Actually, this kind of infighting over power in party politics is not new. It has appeared through­ out Chinese history. For example, the party con­flicts between the New Party and the Old Party in the Northern Sung dynasty [960-1127] led to the destruction of that dynasty. The New Party is just like the present DPP in that it calls for reforms and its members mostly come from southern China. [The members of the Old Party came from north­ern China. In Taiwan, mainlanders still possess the majority of the political resources. But the govern­ment's tax revenue comes mainly from Taiwanese.] As a result, conflicts never end. But the purpose of these conflicts is to struggle for power rather than to improve public welfare. This really worries me.

Democracy can be practiced in various ways. For example, there is a "politics of responsibility." I find it strange that people don't request that the KMT party chairman quit his post. The vote rate for the KMT in this election declined 20 percent, but no one asked him to take responsibility. The vote rate for my party in this election has declined from 2.18 percent to 1.55 percent. I have to take responsibil­ity for this. Therefore, I have resigned as chairman of the party. Why doesn't the KMT do the same?

Mr. Huang said that the DPP is more likely to become an internally created party than the KMT. [This is a reference to party structure. In an exter­nally created party, a central standing committee (as in the case of both the KMT and the DPP) makes the political decisions that are then passed on to its party members in the legislature to carry out. In an internally created party, the party members in the legislature themselves determine policies and act on them.] But in my opinion, over the past six years the DPP has been slow in doing this. Still, there is a growing consensus to achieve an internally created party.

When the DPP caucus was established, Mr. Huang and I wrote the declaration. But we did not make it thorough enough. The central standing committee of the DPP could not control the caucus in the Legislative Yuan. At that time, I urged that the caucus be organized. Later, I found that the situ­ation was reversed. In recent years, the DPP head­ quarters has controlled the caucus. After I quit the DPP, there was no attempt to make the caucus pow­erful enough to affect the party's policymaking. Therefore, the DPP is still far from being a shadow cabinet.

I am concerned about two problems in the DPP. One is internal discipline. A look at the gazettes of the Legislative Yuan of the past three years shows that the level of the legislators' per­formance has declined to a very low point. In the past, we did a lot of preparation for each issue. There wasn't just extemporaneous talk on the floor of the legislature. Mr. Huang may under­ stand my concern.

There used to be about twenty DPP legislators to negotiate with the KMT. Now there are fifty, so it is more difficult to form a consensus. Soon factional conflicts will appear. The KMT already suffers from internal factionalism, but conflicts within the DPP will be even more difficult to solve. If internal discipline can't be maintained, there will be negative results. The more radical, anti-institutional voices will reduce the strength of the more rational ones. The more con­scientious and devoted will lose their right to speak. This is a serious problem.

As a result, two problems arise. From the re­cent performance of the DPP, we see that the For­mosa Faction is inadequate in dealing with political issues. Mr. Huang is an exception. For example, [DPP legislator] Chu Hsing-yu says nothing about the issue of how to elect the president in the future. But the New Current Faction will have strong opinions about this issue. For example, [DPP legislator] Hung Chi-chang recently said that the election of the president must be based on the public's will. On the other hand, members of the Formosa Faction think that keeping Lee Teng-hui will benefit them. For example, [National Assembly and Control Yuan member] Kang Ning-hsiang is close to Lee now, and the two newly elected members of the Control Yuan are also close to Kang. The method of electing the president will be the first conflict to cope with.

The second problem concerns political stabil­ity. Everyone is concerned about this issue. But the most important point is often overlooked: the stabil­ity of the relations between both sides of the Tai­wan Straits. If the relations are not stable, how can Taiwan achieve political stability? Taiwan's stabil­ity is not an independent issue.

In my opinion, because of the DPP's increasing strength, mainland China will become more sensi­tive to politics here and put more pressure on Taiwan. Perhaps their reactions will become more urgent as well. If the DPP does not become more responsible and self-disciplined, then its victory in this election will harm the stability of Taiwan.

This election will have a significant in­fluence on local politics. First, the relation between party and govern­ment will be closer. There will be a demand for closer relations be­tween the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. Internally created parties are the trend.

Only if a parliamentary system is established can conflicts be reduced. Don't try to create some­ thing else. Only a parliamentary system will reduce the scope of the president's power. In the past, the DPP supported the direct election of the president because it thought it was difficult for the DPP to win over half of the votes in parliamentary elections. But in this election, the DPP won 35 percent of the votes. If it works harder and the KMT remains unimproved, it would not be a dream for the DPP to gain more than half of the votes in the future.

To create a fair and stable political environ­ment in Taiwan, I think all DPP members with a moral conscience will agree to build up a parlia­mentary system. It is no longer proper to be hostile to the mainlanders, against the military, and against the parliamentary system only because they disapprove of Premier Hau Pei-tsun.

Finally. I have two suggestions for future op­erations of the Legislative Yuan. First, I hope the KMT will be more open-minded, leaving the post of vice chairman of the Legislative Yuan to a DPP member. Thus, the allocation of responsibility will be more fair, avoiding unnecessary DPP protests during legislative sessions. Second, I hope the KMT will learn from the experience of other advanced countries which have adopted a parliamentary sys­tem wherein the chairman of the budget committee is left to the opposition party. On the other hand, the DPP should be more conscientious about reviewing the budget. Through this process, the DPP may re ally learn how to manage a country. These are the most important things at present. ▪

Let me speak about the elections and political development from an outsider's point of view [that is. as neither a KMT nor DPP member]. Elections are mainly a reflection of political culture, which in the last few years has changed in Taiwan from one of subordination to modernization. For one thing, many KMT-nominated candidates lost in the election. Instead, those without the party's nomi­nation were elected. It's good that fewer and fewer people are willing to be told how to vote. Instead, more and more of them vote independently. In ad­dition, local factions and consortia can no longer exert as much influence as they used to in earlier elections. This indicates a change in people's val­ues and political attitudes. However, the sense of ideology among the younger voters will become stronger after the election. For example, those who are for or against unification with mainland China, will be more firm in their political orientation be­cause, unlike the older generation, they will have to face the future of Taiwan. This may cause more problems.

Party politics has taken a step forward, but there are still problems. For one, can the Leg­islative Yuan become the cen­ter of decision-making? No, I don't think so, unless the Ex­ecutive Yuan [the Cabinet], not the Presidential Office, be­comes the policymaker. Other­wise, the Executive Yuan, which is responsible to the Leg­islative Yuan, will end up only doing the legwork of transferring the policies made by the Presidential Office to the Legislative Yuan. If this occurs, the Legislative Yuan as an institution won't be upgraded, even though it includes many important political figures. Therefore, the Legislative Yuan should pay attention first to the choice of premier and to the role of the Executive Yuan, if it expects to become the center of decision-making.

Concerning the next premier, the KMT may ex­ert pressure on the Legislative Yuan to pass the nomination of a certain person for the post. But that doesn't mean the Legislative Yuan will nec­essarily back up its policies. It would be better if the premier and his cabinet members are accept­ able to the Legislative Yuan, then the premier can carry out his policies with more support from the legislature.

The democratization of the KMT is another problem. Party politics depends on the relationship between the ruling and the opposition parties, which may be in conflict or just competitive. If the major goals of the two parties are incompatible, there will be greater possibility of con­flict. But conflict is not wor­risome as long as it is well managed. When there is party discipline, lots of prob­lems can be solved by the higher-level members. At least they won't expand to local-level councils or even to the streets.

The KMT can build party discipline either through authoritarianism or through democratization. But au­thoritarianism doesn't work any more because of low morale in the party. For ex­ample, the party nominated many plutocrats [the so­ called golden oxen] and lo­cal faction members who ended up losing in the elec­tion. Since democratization of the KMT has not yet fully developed, I'm afraid it won't be easy for the party to have better discipline for the time being.

This election clearly shows the difference be­tween the will of the public and that of the KMT of­ficials. It's no longer possible to rely on the KMT party organ to keep discipline among its members, at least not in the Legislative Yuan. Unless the party democratizes itself first, there's no way to have discipline. For this to happen, those KMT legislators who received the most votes should hold important party posts.

The representative bodies are supposed to make policies and reflect popular will. To do this, the Legislative Yuan should be more active in policymaking and reflect popular will, even though the popular will may sometimes be quite limited. Take the United States as an example. Many mem­bers of the House of Representatives reflect only the will of their constituencies, which may be small. But that doesn't lead to a crisis of fragmentation because there's a solid foundation of leadership in the U.S. Congress. This leadership affects policymaking, and the views of individual con­gressmen are less influential.

In Taiwan, a person can become a senior legis­lator if in each election he always receives around thirty thousand votes, a very small part of the whole population of 20 million. In this election, however, a problem of leadership will arise because many new­ comers who received a great number of votes, but are idealistic and inexperienced in politics, will enter the Legislative Yuan. Who should be the leaders, these newcomers or the senior legislators? In advanced de­mocracies, the senior legislators usually head the con­gress, even though they don't necessarily receive the most votes.

But here it's considered natural that those re­ceiving the most votes should be the leaders. Under such circumstances, there'll be less possibility for developing party politics. However, it's likely that the desires of a big vote-getter's constituency are considerably different from those of the whole population. Policymaking should therefore not nec­essarily be based only on serving constituencies.

With regard to political stabil­ity after the election, I agree with Legislator Chu that we should see the problem from a global point of view. The mainland's attitude should receive special consideration. Basically, I think there won't be serious problems in Taiwan, even if there's political corruption, as long as it maintains economic development. People usually pay for economic mistakes right away, but pay for political ones much later.

The election did accelerate the democratiza­tion of society. But that doesn't mean that society will necessarily benefit. It depends on the quality of democracy. The Latin American countries, which are rather democratized, are a good example. Due to the political openness of recent years, many problems in our political system have risen one af­ter another. A major one is that the system is a mixed one [mixing the parliamentary and presidential systems], in which authority and responsibility are not well defined. In other words, those having authority do not necessarily assume the responsibil­ity. That has made most people uncomfortable. Af­ter the election, I hope this and related problems will be dealt with.

The National Assembly poses another prob­lem. If not managed well, it will expand its power and even cause further constitutional crisis. In fact, there's no way to curb the National Assembly should it become reckless, and it seems to have made such attempts already. The KMT should let it function only passively, otherwise a good relation­ ship between the National Assembly and the Leg­islative Yuan will be difficult to maintain.

But the current system creates a contradiction. The National Assembly's right to examine the qualifications [of those nominated to the Control Yuan] is a right, which I personally think should be given to the Legislative Yuan. In many countries, it's the congress that has the power of control. The Control Yuan members supervise the administra­tion of the Executive Yuan, which is responsible to the Legislative Yuan. Thus, the legislators know better who should be Control Yuan members.

Sometimes there is confusion between specific policymaking and ideology, especially in foreign and mainland affairs. In such cases, more attention should be paid to policymaking than to ideology. The KMT and the DPP should work more on the com­patible propositions of the two parties, and avoid the incompatible ones during major discussions in the Legislative Yuan. In this way, the relationship between the two parties will turn from conflict to competition. Besides, it is important to have chan­nels for communication and a reasonable norm of interaction for both sides to follow.

Better information and more professional as­sistance are also necessary for the Legislative Yuan to stop falling into ideological debates. The govern­ment's administrative officials should be honest and frank to the Legislative Yuan, and provide it with enough information. In the past, the adminis­trative offices, on purpose perhaps, sent piles of budgetary materials to the Legislative Yuan only a few days before its sessions. In such cases, the Leg­islative Yuan would not have time to review the piles of paper no matter how well it was staffed; it was therefore forced to judge the contents quickly. Without enough information and professional as­sistance, many discussions easily turned into ideo­logical debates.

Professional staffing is a problem in the Leg­islative Yuan. In the United States, congressional staffs are large. It's different in England, where the large staff research departments aren't in the con­gress but in the political parties. In Taiwan, due to the different abilities of individual legislators, the whole Legislative Yuan needs to be better staffed. And the problem isn't just the number of staff. We have to look at their incentives and opportunities for advancement. For example, after serving a few years in the Legislative Yuan, outstanding staff research assistants should be able to assume the office of department heads at ministries or even become vice ministers. Such offers will attract more talent.

Beyond staff assistants, the Legislative Yuan should also have offices for the budget, public poll­ing, liaison work, bill research, and also a first-rate congressional library. In addition, strengthening of internal regulations is also needed. For example, legislative records, including the names of legisla­tors voting for or against certain bills, should be made public. In the United States, these records can be purchased by the public. Moreover, congressional debates are on TV in both the United States and in England. If we don't adopt similar measures, there is no way to make legislators more responsi­ble for what they say and how they vote.