The year-end election is fast approaching, and you can see Legislative Yuan candidates' placards everywhere proclaiming "Incorruptible" and "I Speak for the People." But when you flip through the newspaper, one sees a series of incidents from manipulation of policy and special privileges to back door improper lobbying by legislators and price fixing on public contracts. The image of elected officials has already taken a beating in the minds of the voters.

Precisely because doubts about elected officials and "money politics" are increasing daily among the public, the "Parliament Monitor Foundation," which was formally founded in September of this year, has been under close scrutiny ever since the preparatory stage.

This private group, relying mainly on scholars and media workers as the founders, is extolling the ideal that "everyone has responsibility to oversee the parliament." It not only hopes to absorb 20,000 foundation members, it also hopes to find 100 voters for each candidate in each constituency to serve as long term "volunteer observers." In the short space of a month, already more than 1,000 people have joined the ranks.

"Don't assume that only people in Taipei are concerned about the parliament. In fact, except for a couple of remote places like the Pescadores or Kinmen and Matsu, the number of people who have joined from the other cities and counties has been pretty balanced," points out Yao Li-ming, executive director of the PMF.

Although the PMF is the first organization to be established for the express purpose of "overseeing the parliament," there are already precedents for this type of work. Many public interest groups, like women's groups, handicapped advocacy groups, and organizations for people who cannot afford to buy their own homes, have all surveyed the "orientation" of legislators in their respective areas of interest. Further, two years ago, the New Era Foundation, which used quantified indicators like attendance rate or number of interpellations to grade legislators, captured the public eye.

The only problem was that quantified indicators did not tell the whole story, creating strange phenomena like legislators "filling the air with interpellations" to drive up their scores and look better. Further, a shortage of personnel and funding difficulties made it impossible for the New Era Foundation to follow up on its work.

Taking into account the previous experience of others, since the PMF "has quantified objectivity, it can have qualitative content," and can truly help voters differentiate between "suitable" and "un suitable" legislators. Of course, this is also what many in the electorate hope for as well. What follows is the contents of an exclusive interview with Yao Li-ming, executive director of the Parliament Monitor Foundation (PMF).

Q: Since being established on September 1, how has progress been on recruiting new members for the PMF? How far are you from your goal?

A: Up through the end of September, there were about 1,000 supporting members (the basic fee for supporting members is NT$1,000). Our long-term goal is to have 20,000. If we can reach 5,000 by the end of the elections this year then that will be excellent. What I'm more worried about is that people are enthusiastic at the beginning, but later on their enthusiasm might cool. Thus increasing the number of members is a major goal for us at the moment, but another major goal is to get the participants well-organized and coordinated.

Scholars and officials

In terms of organization, at the moment nearly 200 college and university professors have joined, because intellectuals are more concerned with this type of work. Indeed some of the founders of the PMF include a few university presidents and deans of graduate schools. So this force will be hard to ignore.

In the future, after an estimated 500 scholars have joined, we will divide them into from 50 to 100 specialized committees based on their own areas of expertise. For example, under the broad heading of environmental protection, one could have sub-divisions for environmental engineering, environmental resources, and so on. If in the future a legislator provides a copy of his or her interpellation on environmental protection, we can send it to those who are directly responsible for this topic and ask them to provide their opinions.

Besides drawing on scholars, one of our goals is to do effective coordination among administrators in various agencies--including the local and central governments, state-run corporations, labor unions, farmers' associations, and so on. Of course we're not going to just ask them if any legislators have been pressuring them under the table for favors or doing improper lobbying, but simply hope they will use their governing experience to help us to see whether our own judgements are reasonable or not.

Speaking of improper lobbying, we can raise one point in passing: We have designed many types of forms, such as forms for making a record of improper lobbying by individual legislators, for making a record of special privileges, for making a record of unrepaid "loans," and so on. These forms are to be sent to every volunteer observer. Of course it would be best if they were never to be used, but of the observers really do discover that a certain legislator has engaged in any of the above actions, then they can fill out the form, sign their name to it, and send it back to the Foundation. (We don't accept anonymous reports.) We will then keep the reports on file, and when a great deal of proof has been accumulated on any given incident, which is to say there are many "questionable points," only then will we begin an investigation. Thus we are fundamentally "passive."

Further, in sending these forms to lower level officials, our intention is to protect them. This is because improper legislative lobbying of the executive branch is not a problem of one specific incident or legislator, but is already widespread in our political culture. Thus it is very difficult to just ask officials to use their personal moral courage to break through the pressures of improper lobbying. We hope that in the future we can get to the point where, after these officials report to us, we can report to the investigating agencies on their behalf under the name of the foundation. If at some later time the lobbying case comes into the open, and legal proceedings are begun against the official in question, then we could produce the document as evidence in his or her defense, which will have some effect in lightening their legal responsibility in the case. However, this aspect still requires more detailed planning.

Profitable areas of investigation

Q: At present, in what areas is the PMF making concrete progress in overseeing the parliament?

A: Right now there are three main tasks. The first is to promote the ideal of the "professional lawmaker" through what is for the moment called the "List of Legislators Simultaneously Holding Positions in Profit-Making Enterprises." This conflict of interest investigation has already been completed, and can be announced any time. But because we are afraid of making any mistake and harming our trustworthiness in the eyes of the public, we are reconfirming our information over and over. In the end, of more than 100 legislators, to show that any given legislator runs ten profit-making firms is not difficult, but it is extremely hard to find any legislator who does not have a single concurrent position with a profit-making enterprise. In particular, I know that many people are watching us closely waiting for us to make a mistake, so we must be especially careful.

A second major task is to publicize the positions of each legislator on major policy issues. We are now doing a survey about the land tax policy, which has been getting the most attention of late. We want to see what their concepts are about this policy, or what kind of tax system they prefer. But this type of work has a high degree of difficulty. On the one hand, for some of the less diligent legislators, their understanding of these important policies is no greater than that of the average man on the street. On the other, in order to avoid opening themselves up to criticism, those legislators who stand to gain directly will naturally try to conceal their actual thinking about a given issue. So we need to get experts to design these survey questionnaires, and also factor the day to day activities and performance of legislators into the observation.

The third item is to encourage the passage of "sunshine laws"--which is to say the four areas of laws on public disclosure of the assets of public officials, a law on lobbying, norms for political contributions, and most difficult of all, the free circulation of information. Of course on the surface over 100 legislators have solemnly announced their sup port for sunshine laws. But the reason the Executive Yuan has kept procrastinating in sending these types of bills to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation is precisely because many lawmakers have "hinted" to the executive to "ust try and send them in--and see what happens!" In order to reveal the hypocrisy of their verbal support, we have chosen the title "Who Is Blocking Sunshine Laws?" for our work report on this matter. We are aggressive ly undertaking this report right now.

Q: In terms of such "sunshine laws," have many legislators taken the initiative on their own to provide information on their assets to the PMF?

A: As of this moment, three legislators have reported their assets to the PMF. But the association at present can only do passive collection of documents, so these cannot be seen as formal records. This is because of limits on the investigative ability of the foundation, especially in the two areas of financial dealings and real estate. For the former it would be impossible unless all the financial institutions were willing to cooperate. For the latter, even the Ministry of the Interior, in charge of land policy, can't find out who all the land in the country belongs to, so it would be even more unlike ly for us to find out. Of course, after the next legislative elections, if some of the new legislators are willing to give us the power and right to do a complete investigation, then maybe we could give it a try.

Stunning "individual cases" have the biggest effect

Q: Besides the above three tasks, what other things come within the scope of the oversight of the PMF?

A: There's a lot. To put it simply, we want to observe: (1) How much each legislator is doing of what should be done; and (2) Whether or not they are doing things they shouldn't be doing.

As for the first item, legislators have eight major powers. Of these the four of proposing bills, interpellations, deliberation of laws, and review of the budget are routinely used. If a legislator doesn't even show up for sessions, or comes but has nothing to say, or speaks but just says nothing, or just speaks in defense of personal interests, then all of these come under the scope of our observation. This type of observation includes every legislator, and is comprehensive.

As for the second item--not doing what you shouldn't do--this part will employ the "individual case" method, like the recently released "Report on the Investigation of the Stock Market Listing of the Feng An Company." Of course, everyone has a different definition of what we call "that which shouldn't be done." But there is broad public consensus on some things like special privileges or improper lobbying, manipulating the law for personal gain (such as indeliberations on the rates for customs duties for imports), or conspiring to fix public bids, and so on.

Q: It seems that "what shouldn't be done" at tracts more public attention.

A: Naturally, reports on the dark side of specific cases are more newsworthy. For example, anytime we have a press conference, we always send notices to reporters three days in advance. But news about our seminar on a lobbying law and improper back-door influence got only a small amount of space in the papers, whereas the Feng An stock case was played up by the media for four days straight, from the time they got the notices to the press conference. Therefore, although we are aware that we should provide some lists of positive things and good performance, and we are especially afraid of only producing negative reports so that we end up offending and turning off the vast majority of legislators, the media's interest in and reporting of negative information far exceeds its interest in positive information--and that's really frustrating.

Not trying to drag skeletons out of the closet

Q: Isn't the timing for announcing such information--right before the election--a little too sensitive?

A: To be honest, in these cases, the PMF just accepts the commission of someone else who asks us to conduct the investigation, and the timing of the publication is not up to me to decide--everything depends on the development of the incident in question. If you say that such investigations will affect the number of votes a certain candidate gets, that is not our original intent. We hope to achieve a nonpartisan, transcendent posture. We have no desire to bear the burden of some mission of "eradicating evil forces in the Legislative Yuan" or anything like that. We just want to let voters know what it is the people they have chosen to be their representatives are doing. As for whether voters will vote next time, and who they will vote for, that is up to the voters themselves.

Q: How many such "individual cases" are currently under investigation?

A: Less than ten. And none of them has really taken definite shape. In order to avoid being criticized as unfair--"but everybody does this, why do you single me out for investigation?!"--we in siston thoroughness and comprehensiveness. For example a person gives us information on the amount of unrepaid loans a certain legislator has on the books of such-and-such a bank, yet it just might be that the unrepaid "loans" of other legislators are even bigger, so the best thing to do is just to file the information and keep watching.

As for when the time is right to establish a special committee for the investigating stage, I think there are four main conditions: One is that the evidence is very concrete. The second is that we can indeed discover many "questionable points" in the incident. The third is the comprehensiveness and thoroughness of the data that I just mentioned. And the fourth is that the PMF has the ability to take on the responsibility for the case. Only when these four conditions are fulfilled will we truly open an investigation. Thus the PMF by no means goes out looking for cases to "dig up." At the same time, to avoid falling into the trap of being used as a tool by someone, we will pay attention to the motives of the person who commissions us in the first place, and the person who commissions us absolutely can not participate in our investigative process.

It would be better for us not to be needed at all

Q: In the founding declaration of the PMF, it is stated that in evaluations legislators will be classified as outstanding, well-suited, average, not suited, and poor. How is progress going in this area?

A: We are for the moment not undertaking this aspect. In our original conception, there would be nine items for evaluation--those being, besides the eight main powers of legislators, also adding one item for "constituent service." There are four criteria for evaluation--whether the legislator effectively promotes a balance with the executive; whether the legislator's attitude in interpellations is reasonable; the extent to which expressed political views are realized in practice; and whether or not the legislator follows the constitution. (However, we don't include ideology.) The evaluation method is divided into preliminary review and reassessment, and each evaluation committee member is only responsible for a specific item (for example, "proposing bills"). Also, several evaluators share responsibility for each item, and so on. In the end we hope to confidently produce lists of who is "well-suited" and who is "not suited" to be a legislator.

This evaluative concept has largely been completed, but right now the foundation is still in the stage of actively collecting data and making up individual files on each representative. Later, when the data is complete, and after there is a consensus among 500 scholars and they begin to devote them selves to this work, we will focus on a specific legislative session, and only then can we really enter the evaluation stage. Thus it is unlikely there will be any evaluation results before next July or August.

In fact, the various reports of the PMF are simply provided to the public for reference. In particular, in the true spirit of democratic politics, elected representatives shouldn't need oversight, because they represent the voters, and the ballots of the citizens are the best oversight, and who has the right to take the place of the voters? But domestic parliamentary politics has not really gotten on track yet, and the general public does not necessarily have an accurate view of elections. For example vote buying is still effective, or not much emphasis is placed on policy views, or people base their choices on neighborhood or factional "relationships," and so on. This means that sometimes good legislators lose, and "bad" legislators keep getting reelected time after time.

Thus the people need education, and need even more information to help them understand. Of course, the Parliament Monitor Foundation is not a monopoly, and the more differentiated and trusted groups that enter into parliamentary oversight, the better. What's most important is that in the future parliamentary politics be sound and healthy, so that people will no longer need these groups--that is our real heartfelt desire.

[Picture Caption]

The Parliament Monitor Foundation sends specialized people to the Legislative Yuan every day to listen, take notes and make contact, allowing them to keep their hand on the pulse of the legislature.

Yao Li-ming, who teaches at National Sun Yat-sen University in Kaohsiung, hopes that even more scholars will join the ranks of the Monitor group.

The PMF has held a series of seminars to promote the early passage of "sunshine laws." The photo is of the seminar on "Disclosure of Personal Assets by Public Officials." (photo by Wang Wen-ping)

The election is underway--who will be the big names in next year's legislature?

Yao Li-ming, who teaches at National Sun Yat-sen University in Kaohsiung, hopes that even more scholars will join the ranks of the Monitor group.

The PMF has held a series of seminars to promote the early passage of "sunshine laws." The photo is of the seminar on "Disclosure of Personal Assets by Public Officials." （photo by Wang Wen-ping）

The election is underway--who will be the big names in next year's legislature?