Images of brawling legislators are a common sight in Taiwan — and this embarrassment appears unlikely to end any time soon. Rational negotiation and compromise are rare in Taiwanese politics.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金浦聰) has suggested that the legislature follow the example of other countries and employ a sergeant at arms in the legislature to maintain order by commanding guards when things get out of hand.
Our legislators could use a dose of discipline — in the same way schoolchildren are sent out when there is too much excitement in the classroom. The legislature is not an elementary school, however, and there is no legal basis for introducing such a position. Even if there were, it is doubtful this would have a deterring effect.
The legislature has, in the past, used police to remove brawling legislators from the floor, but without powers to restrict such behavior, legislators are likely — regardless of whether there is a sergeant at arms — to return to the floor and take up where they left off. A sergeant at arms could not be empowered to remove legislators and hold them elsewhere without potentially violating the Constitution.
A sergeant at arms might be able to resolve a clash between a couple of people with the help of guards, but when entire groups of legislators go at each other, this would not be very helpful.
In many legislatures or parliaments that have such a post, the duties have become ceremonial or administrative. Force is rarely required.
In addition, the position of sergeant at arms has the potential to be politicized — especially in this country. Even if the legislature authorized a sergeant at arms to maintain order, that person would have to endure constant accusations from legislators — most likely from the opposition — that he or she is merely a political tool.
When legislators seeking to control proceedings resort to seizing control of the speaker’s podium and other confrontational tactics, the sergeant at arms would likely come under pressure from all sides over whether to call guards to remove one or more legislators from the floor. There is a risk that the sergeant at arms would be dragged into the conflict instead of serving as a referee.
Although there is no legal basis for introducing police powers into the legislature, there is a mechanism for maintaining the agenda. The speaker has the power to maintain the orderly implementation of the agenda, and there are generally guards present. Moreover, the Discipline Committee can punish legislators who disrupt proceedings. Yet these powers are rarely invoked. In the past, speakers have called in guards to separate battling lawmakers, but such tactics usually led to more chaos and were widely criticized.
If items on the agenda are addressed unfairly or unreasonably, the caucuses will never be able to reach a compromise. The losers in this situation are the public and the nation. If legislators do not address the source of disrespect, disruptions and all-out brawls, adding a sergeant at arms to the mix will have little effect.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS