At a recent meeting of the Legislative Yuan’s Social Welfare and Environmental Hygiene Committee, it was announced that an amendment to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) to enshrine a five-day workweek in law had cleared the committee review stage. Since then, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and New Power Party (NPP) caucuses have been locked in a dispute over whether a legislative caucus has the right to introduce motions.
NPP Executive Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) said that according to the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Yuan, no restriction is placed on the number of signatures required for a party caucus to propose a motion, and asked why the DPP committee convener declined to consider his party’s motion on the grounds that it was supported by only one committee member, while DPP Legislator Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) allowed caucuses to introduce motions to the Internal Administration Committee.
In response, DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) said the regulations merely state that a motion “may” be permitted, not that they “should” be, adding that changing the rules requires a legal amendment.
Laws are created for a specific purpose, should be interpreted with their purpose in mind and implemented according to the spirit of the law.
The Act Governing the Exercise of Legislative Power (立法院職權行使法) and the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Yuan stipulate that party caucuses that conform to the requirements set out in the Organic Act of Legislative Committees (立法院各委員會組織法) may introduce motions in the name of a party caucus without any restriction on the number of signatories.
The purpose of these rules is to create a legislature focused on parties rather than on caucuses to improve the expertise within legislative committees. This is designed to establish the legal position of party caucuses and ensure respect for minority groupings or independent legislators, while encouraging harmonious political consensus within the legislature.
In reality, as political caucuses must take into account political considerations, legal proposals are frequently not directed at the important aspects of the motion at hand. For example, the ability to call for a reconsideration of a motion is limited to the lawmakers who attended the debate of the motion and who have not yet raised an objection.
However, the legislative agenda is destabilized because legislators opposed to a motion abuse their ability to request a reconsideration. If this practice is carried over to legislative committees, it would no longer be possible to improve efficiency.
Legislative committees are a venue for the full and substantive debate of new legislation. This is an important element of the legislative process that converts government policy into law, but to make full use of this specialized legislative function, committees must conduct business according to the principles of direct discussion and oral communication: Committee members must debate legislation in face-to-face debates.
Party caucuses are organized along political lines and if they were allowed to introduce motions, the specialized scrutiny of legislation would be compromised. Moreover, as not every party caucus has seats on every committee, if they were allowed to submit bills, it would be impossible to conduct a proper debate. Also, as committees are set up with two joint conveners, in a situation where members are pulling in different directions along party lines, how would the conveners be able to unify the committee?
Legislative committees do not formulate their own rules of procedure. Instead, the Organic Act of Legislative Committees states that committees may follow the procedures set out within the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Yuan. This means that any aspects of a committee’s procedural order that are not covered by the regulations will be dealt with indirectly by making an analogy to existing rules so that their essence is adhered to. This supplements any gaps in the legislation regarding committees.
Committees make preparations for legislative deliberation and decisionmaking, and they operate very differently from the legislature, meaning some restrictions apply. Members carry out a specialist role within the legislature. Not only do they not possess the right to propose a bill, they also do not have the power to interpret procedural issues. Although conveners of the Internal Administration Committee have previously allowed party caucuses to introduce motions, this has been done on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the committee chairman. This should not be interpreted as being applicable to the review of all proposals, as that would put the legislature in a constant state of chaos.
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 Edward Jones
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath