The debate over whether the Legislative Yuan should continue to hold the national policy forum has dragged on for years. Early in this legislative session, the New Power Party caucus proposed abolishing it to improve parliamentary efficiency.
The Democratic Progressive Party caucus said that it would not rule out supporting the proposal, while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus wanted to focus on the legislative committees, and the Taiwan People’s Party caucus said that it had yet to discuss the issue.
The national policy forum was established 16 years ago as a platform for minority parties to promptly respond to public opinion. Hasty abolishment without preparing an alternative might cause smaller parties to be ignored, which is not beneficial to improving parliamentary efficiency.
Whether it is a matter of interpellation, bill deliberation, hearings or investigations, all issues should be debated by legislators, as “debate” should be at the core of the legislature’s business. Legislators should establish two-way communication by convincing each other through logical arguments, not by hurling insults or launching personal attacks.
To establish an equal dialogue based on free and rational debate, improve the scientific and democratic nature of decisionmaking and minimize the negative effects of checks and balances on power, both the British Parliament and the US Congress have set debating rules.
For instance, a member should not deviate from the topic, nor use profane or vulgar language to address other members, and they should refer to them by constituency rather than personal name. These regulations program legislators to conduct rational discussion.
The Legislative Yuan has followed outdated rules since its establishment. Picking up bad habits from predecessors, most newly elected lawmakers often use loud and strong language, and few rely on rational reasoning.
Following the nation’s first direct legislative election in 1992, lawmakers often scrambled to express their opinions on current affairs by asking for the floor to speak for three minutes using their right to raise a question of privilege, raise a point of order or make a parliamentary inquiry.
Such conduct not only posed a great challenge to the legislative speaker, it also interrupted the predetermined session agenda.
In September 1994, a consensus was reached through cross-caucus negotiations to implement the national policy forum to prevent the legislative agenda from being interrupted by lawmakers asking for the floor.
Lawmakers who want to express their opinion can register and draw lots to speak for three minutes during the hour-long forum before the legislative session starts.
However, in practice these addresses are influenced by TV broadcasts. When the cameras are directed toward the legislative floor, the spotlight is on the lawmaker’s performance.
Protected by legislative immunity, lawmakers have gradually turned the forum into a stage for political posturing and all kinds of peculiar performances, such as wearing bizarre costumes, bringing props and banners, playing music, making sarcastic remarks or hurling insults, calling the forum’s appropriateness into question.
Debating the problems currently facing the nation and the measures to be adopted by the government is more beneficial to formulating feasible policies and in line with international trends than a legislator delivering a soliloquy in the forum.
Lawmakers across party lines should seize this opportunity to establish debating rules to replace the forum.
Lo Chuan-hsien is a former director-general of the Legislative Yuan’s Organic Laws and Statutes Bureau.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS