Cross-caucus negotiations, which are usually held on the final days of a legislative session, have become a political vice that plagues the nation’s legislative system and need to be removed.
Carried out behind closed doors, where all kinds of dubious exchanges of benefits can take place, the negotiations are free from any form of scrutiny and might safely be branded “bureaucracy of the highest order.”
One of the debilitating effects that such negotiations have had on the nation is turning the public interest into a political bargaining chip.
They have also allowed some politicians to turn the time allotted for standard legislative meetings into political shows, in which they create all kinds of drama to attract attention in the hopes of winning over voters and bolstering their re-election chances.
Consequently, key bills are often delayed until the end of a legislative session and then brought to cross-caucus negotiations, where they are arbitrarily defeated or passed.
One infamous example is the passage of an amendment to Article 99, Clause 1 of the Accounting Act (會計法), which was passed shortly before midnight on May 31, 2013. The amendment would have acquitted all government officials and legislators who were imprisoned or facing charges for having misappropriated their stipends.
Although the legislation was later nullified after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) seconded proposals to abolish the amendment, the incident forced Ma, then-Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and several DPP lawmakers to publicly apologize for having allowed such an amendment to pass — something that could not have happened without the consent of all the political parties involved in the discussions.
Another reason for abolishing cross-caucus negotiations is that it would help motivate people to approach social issues in a more sensible manner.
For example, a budget proposal submitted by Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) to reprocess spent nuclear rods in France is set to be reviewed in the present legislative session. So far, opinions on how to handle nuclear waste have been polarized in an “all-or-nothing” manner: either stick to the plan or scrap it altogether.
The lack of a middle ground has brought the discussions to a standstill and little has been said about how to respond to a lack of domestic space for nuclear waste storage, which is a pressing matter that must be faced.
Imagine what would happen if the proposal were brought to the cross-caucus negotiations.
A possible scenario is that legislators who have on so many public occasions voiced their objections to the project would agree to it once they are hidden from the public eye, saying nuclear waste storage is a national security issue, and processing the waste overseas seems the only viable option.
Much of the clamor around the Taipower plan has to do with it choosing French company AREVA to undertake the project, as the firm is reportedly on the verge of bankruptcy.
The agitation over the plan has clouded the judgements of most people, preventing them from seeing an alternative to Taipower’s proposal — for example, finding another firm to carry out the reprocessing. Moreover, it has provided politicians a platform for politicking, one that created conflict and confused the public.
The nation has too much to lose with cross-caucus negotiations and any young political party taking a stand against such deal-making deserves a chance in January’s elections to push for reform in the legislature.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS