Respect in the legislature
Question-and-answer (Q&A) sessions at the Legislative Yuan have become a show, with some legislators questioning officials: “Have you tendered your resignation?” slamming podiums or throwing budget books in anger. They perform passionately to attract media coverage and more clicks online — without an in-depth review of Taiwan’s public affairs.
The public entrusts the power of monitoring to the legislature to check facts and clarify accountabilities, not for lawmakers to gain attention by humiliating or shouting at officials. When the Q&A sessions become a show, the administrative flaws and legal problems that need to be investigated are drowned by noise, as procedures and evidence play a secondary role.
When officials attend such legislative sessions, they should be questioned based on procedures and evidence. When lawmakers exercise their monitoring power, they should also respect personal dignity and procedural justice. Taking the Legislative Yuan as a broadcast room, and replacing debate with emotions erodes the credibility of democracy and the dignity of the legislature.
The media and civil society have the same responsibility: They should not sit back and watch or even become accomplices who encourage “performative politics.” Voters, for their part, should try to make choices based on the depth of an issue, instead of the drama of it.
More importantly, the legislative system should specify the scope of questioning, strengthen agenda control, and issue penalties for violations. Lawmakers should also speak based on professionalism and data, rather than relying on emotional expression. As for the public, they can promote substantive discussion of issues through monitoring platforms and public service media, keeping track of the results of investigations and reviews.
Democracy would be hurt if the Legislative Yuan becomes a hotbed for bullying. The media and the public should correct this mistake, and push lawmakers toward rational questioning, so the legislative floor can return to a solemn domain with self-reflection and true responsibility.
Pu Hsiao
Taipei
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS