Passage of the Lobbying Law in August last year should have been a bright spot in Taiwan’s legislative history. It made Taiwan only the third country in the world – after the United States and Canada – to enact a law to seek to control abuses of money and influence in the political process.

But unfortunately the law was drafted, and passed, with insufficient attention to political realities and implementing procedures. As a result, no sooner had the statute come into effect last month after a one-year waiting period than a raft of serious problems became evident. Additional shortcomings are certain to arise as more and more organizations, companies, and individuals gain practical experience grappling with the law’s restrictions.

Among the difficulties are the law’s excessively broad scope and requirement for huge amounts of paperwork and recordkeeping. Unlike the U.S. and Canadian models, which apply only to professional lobbyists of a certain scale, the Taiwan version impacts anyone who seeks to influence elected or politically appointed officials about laws, government policies, or pending legislation. Also unlike the North American examples, where a simple registration as a lobbyist is handled by a central office, in Taiwan separate registrations are required for each person and every particular “matter” to be lobbied. The various government organizations maintain their own windows for accepting such applications, and inevitably their interpretations of the rules often vary considerably from one another.

For a relatively well-established NGO such as AmCham, the law poses a heavy administrative burden – but one that can be managed. More worrisome is the potential impact on the numerous social-activist organizations that struggle to get by with just a few personnel and tiny budgets. If the unforeseen consequence of the law is to limit the ability of civil society to make its voice heard to policymakers and legislators, Taiwan’s democratic development will have been dealt a severe setback.

Another drawback of the law lies in the definition of the officials to be covered. Excluded are legislators’ administrative assistants, many of whom are regularly empowered to act on their boss’s behalf. That omission leaves a wide loophole in the efficacy of the law. At the same time, members of the Council of Grand Justices are inexplicably included in the law’s coverage, although it seems incredible that lobbying of the judiciary should be permitted.

For multinational companies operating in Taiwan, a key provision in the law may be the prohibition on “foreign companies” from engaging in lobbying themselves, requiring them to employ a professional lobbyist to represent them. This restriction does not affect subsidiaries, which are considered local companies established under ROC law, but it does apply to branches, unreasonably limiting many important players in the domestic economy in their ability to express views on policy to high-level officials. The Lobbying Law clearly needs a thorough revamping. Thankfully both the Ministry of the Interior (the competent authority for administering the law) and numerous legislators appear to be aware of the problems with the law, and discussion has already begun about amending it next year. As this process goes forward, AmCham will continue to provide comments and suggestions designed to help make the law as practical and effective as possible.