Three Modes of Legislative Behavior in Taiwan and their Potential Impact on China
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Due to their distinct legislative purposes, the major policy or institutions chosen, and their operating methods, we can distinguish three modes of legislation: regulatory legislation, rhetorical legislation, and reflexive legislation. Legislators choose different legislative modes according to their own political needs and interests. According to this author’s long term observations and personal participation, there are some distinguishing features in most legislators who are elected by different constituencies in Taiwan: first, most legislators regard regulatory legislation as the best and only way to solve social problems; second, most legislators choose to rely more on administrative agents as the first choice for legal implementation institutions, whether the subject legislation is regulatory or rhetorical. Third, in operation, most legislators emphasize the rhetorical legislative mode to manipulate the media. Last, more and more non-profit and profit interest groups express hopes that legislators might attempt to pass some reflexive legislation. However, most legislators do not understand the interest in reflexive legislation. Due to the gradually increasing and closer interactions between Taiwan and China, especially in the media, that all of the news people in China can see from television news reports, the Chinese people understand that the rhetorical function of the legislative branch in public policy decisions is interested in the welfare of the people, yet, the regulations and rules made by legislators seem to always be disconnected from social practices. This situation will result in people in China viewing the “rule of law” system as being unrealistic.
Abstract
Due to their distinct legislative purposes, the major policy or institutions chosen, and their operating methods, we can distinguish three modes of legislation: regulatory legislation, rhetorical legislation, and reflexive legislation. Legislators choose different legislative modes according to their own political needs and interests. According to this author’s long term observations and personal participation, there are some distinguishing features in most legislators who are elected by different constituencies in Taiwan: first, most legislators regard regulatory legislation as the best and only way to solve social problems; second, most legislators choose to rely more on administrative agents as the first choice for legal implementation institutions, whether the subject legislation is regulatory or rhetorical. Third, in operation, most legislators emphasize the rhetorical legislative mode to manipulate the media. Last, more and more non-profit and profit interest groups express hopes that legislators might attempt to pass some reflexive legislation. However, most legislators do not understand the interest in reflexive legislation. Due to the gradually increasing and closer interactions between Taiwan and China, especially in the media, that all of the news people in China can see from television news reports, the Chinese people understand that the rhetorical function of the legislative branch in public policy decisions is interested in the welfare of the people, yet, the regulations and rules made by legislators seem to always be disconnected from social practices. This situation will result in people in China viewing the “rule of law” system as being unrealistic.
참고문헌 (15)
- Chen, Dung-Sheng, "The Prospects of Deliberatice Democracy in Taiwan. Asian New Democracies: The Philippines, south Korea and Taiwan Compared" (2006), Taiwan Foundation for Democracy Publication
- Social Attitude Telephone Survey Si03B at Dec., 2003, "Chiu, Hei-yuan", Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica, ~ (2003)
- Cooney, Sean, "The Application, and Non-application, of Rule of Law Principles in Taiwan, In Asian Discourses of Rule of Law: Theories and Implementation of Rule of Law in Twelve Asian Countries, France, and the U.S" (2004), Routledge
- Domes, Jürgen, "Electoral and Party Politics in Democratization. Democratization in Taiwan: Implication for China" (1999), Hong Kong University Press
- Fell, Dafydd J, "Taiwan’s Democracy: Towards a Liberal Democracy or Authoritarianism?", Journal of Current Chinese Affairs (2010)
- Huang, Shao Yan, "The Process and Effects of Taiwan’s Voluntary Publication of Financial Forecasts of Public Companies System", Journal of Stocks and Futures, 25(5) (2007)
- Ku, Chung-hwa, "Civil Society and Congress Watch", Taiwan Democracy Quarterly, 5(1) (2008)
- Liu, Wen Hsiang, "The Study of Corporate Environmental Reporting in Taiwan－and Stakeholders’ View of Environmental Reporting", 석사, pp.2001
- Rigger, Shelley, "Taiwan’s Best-Case Democratization", Orbis, 48(2) (2004)
- Sheng, Shing-yuan, "Why Does the Taiwanese Public Hate the Legislative Yuan?", Taiwan Democracy Quarterly, 3(3) (2006)
- Tien, Hung-mao, "Crafting Democratic Institutions. Democratization in Taiwan: Implication for China" (1999), Hong Kong University Press
- Weng, Nei, "Environmental Disclosures and Stock Price Behavior- An Event Study of Illegal Dumping of Toxic Industrial Waste of Formosa Plastics Inc", Soochow Journal of Economics and Business, (42) (2003)
- Whitehead, Laurence, "The Democratization of Taiwan: A Comparative Perspective. Democratization in Taiwan: Implication for China" (1999), Hong Kong University Press
- Yang, Tai-shuen, "Misunderstood Congress" (2003), Sitak Publishing and Book Corporation
- Yi, Chin-chun, "Social Attitude Telephone Survey Si02B at Dec., 2002" (1992), Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica