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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS