During the last meeting of this year’s first legislative session on Friday last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus proposed a vote on each of the 276 items on the floor agenda in an attempt to block the passage of a draft bill on ill-gotten party assets that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is pushing.
The dragged-out voting procedure blocked the bill’s passage.
Be it legislative or other matters, democratic parliaments proceed through debate. In exercising their freedom of speech, US senators can speak for an unlimited time in what is called a “filibuster.” Senators from minority parties who are unable to block a bill or who want to achieve a certain goal give marathon speeches — during which they are not allowed to eat or even go to the bathroom — in order to block a bill from going to a vote.
US Senator Strom Thurmond set the filibuster record in 1957, when he spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an attempt to block the US’ Civil Rights Act. In 1975, the US Senate changed its rules so that a filibuster can be ended, which is called “cloture,” through a vote by three-fifths of all senators.
In a more recent example, a South Korean opposition senator in March spoke for 11 hours and 39 minutes in an attempt to block anti-terrorism legislation.
A filibuster in the US House of Representatives can be brought to an end by a simple majority, while the House of Commons in the UK requires that an address must be directly related to the bill under discussion, with the result that similar situations do not occur there.
In the Legislative Yuan, the speaker announces how long a lawmaker can speak for, and if that time is exceeded, the lawmaker is interrupted by the speaker. Filibusters are replaced by occupations of the speaker’s podium or other methods to paralyze the agenda.
In 1999, the New Party rallied 25 lawmakers to propose a bill that put pressure on the KMT and then-legislative speaker Liu Sung-pan (劉松藩), as the legislature was about to pass five bills regulating the workings of the legislature. They did so to persuade Liu and the KMT to include caucus regulations in the Act Governing the Exercise of Legislative Power (立法院職權行使法) and the legislative agenda rules that were in line with the Organic Law of the Legislative Yuan (立院組織法).
According to the proposed rules, a legislative caucus would be allowed to propose a bill — unless barred by the Constitution — thus removing restrictions on the number of lawmakers required to sign a draft bill or motion.
This means that caucuses can make proposals without requiring 20 signatures on motions, 15 signatures on legal bills and revotes, and 10 signatures for other proposals. A stamp is held by a caucus officials so that the official, without caucus confirmation, can fill in paperwork and give caucus approval. This is both simple and convenient.
However, this is also the reason there are frequent motions for reconsideration, requests for caucus talks or revotes on proposals, as the arrangement is being increasingly abused. The use of a huge amount of proposals to block the party assets bill is an even rarer event, and the lack of restriction on proposals a party caucus can submit must be discussed.
To increase the scientific and democratic foundation for decisionmaking, the legislative agenda should be focused on debate. The merit of legislative debates should be decided by rational means and not by abusing caucus proposal rights and obstructing the agenda. The legislature must establish debate rules as soon as possible.
Lo Chuan-hsien is an adjunct professor of law at Central Police University and a former director-general of the Legislative Yuan’s Legislative Bureau.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers