Re: Heated debate turns into mass brawl at Taiwan parliament

[mallard]

Taiwan again makes news in the foreign press over violence in the legislature. The DPP in particular are motivated if not eager to abrogate rules of civil behavior in pressing for a form of 'democracy' which they apparently believe lies deeper within the social foundations than pesky laws about violent behavior, nevermind protcols regarding the passing of legislation. Is the place like their own Burger King, and they just want it 'their way' or what?

Re: Daily Mail [UK] 1/19/10 great photos and video included
When MPs attack: Heated debate turns into mass brawl at Taiwan parliament

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z0d2FFwWrm

In the House of Commons a political fight is little more than a mildly-worded disagreement - but in Taiwain it's more akin to a violent football brawl.

In the island nation's most recent melee, more than 70 MPs punched and wrestled each other to the ground, yanked clothing and hurled anything in a politician's grasp.

One member of the governing party even claimed that he had been bitten by a member of the opposition.

The extraordinary violence broke out when legislators from the ruling Nationalist Party (KMT) and the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) failed to reach a consensus on changes to the Local Government Act.

'A violent conflict erupted in the process after the DPP had exhausted other means to stop the law,' the ruling party said in a statement.

Three KMT legislators said they were hurt in the melee. The law passed after the brawl.

Although rows are not unusual in the rambunctious seat of Taiwanese government, it was the first mass scrap in two years.

After starting a transition from dictatorship to democracy in 1987, the country is split between the two parliamentary factions.

In January 2008, the ruling Nationalist Party (KMT) had sworn off fighting when it expanded its majority and the overall number of MPs was reduced by half.

In 2004, one politician suggested MPs should be forced to take breathalyser tests before legislative meetings to prevent the frequent fist-fights.

But brawls in parliament are seen as one way for the opposition to show voters that it stands tough on issues.

Once a Taiwanese politician tried to eat the draft of new legislation to stop a vote on it, while in June 2007, the leader of the ruling party received a slap from an opposition party member who took exception to her address.

While parliamentary debate in Britain is mostly a peaceful process, last March police had to use CS spray to break up a fight in the Palace of Westminster following a reception for journalists hosted by the Conservatives.

Article:

'But brawls in parliament are seen as one way for the opposition to show voters that it stands tough on issues.'

But creating unnecessary brawls in the legislature also proves how the DPP can't be trusted in acting within the law according to civil code established across the civilzed world. They basically reserve the right to be animals ... if they don't get their way, and thereby threaten the future of Taiwan.

[ref: whatreallyhappened.com]

[sandman]

Jumped-up hayseeds. News at 11.

[the bear]

...台灣之光...

[mallard]

You can say that again, but what does it mean?

[IceEagle]

You can say that again, but what does it mean?

Taiwan's bright ray of light?

[TheLostSwede]

Was even in the news in Sweden... not impressive at all...

[Cueball]

Was even in the news in Sweden... not impressive at all...

So what would you suggest, Swede? That the DPP sit back and let the KMT ram through any unconstitutional bill they see fit? What's next, a bill to indefinitely extend the life of the legislative and presidency?

As much as I usually don't think these brawls are a good idea, this time there was at least moral justification in trying to stop the vote take place. I think that democracy is worth fighting for, and if such a bill was being pushed in my country I would expect the Opposition to do anything it could to stop it including using force.

Of course most of the international media being under the spell of the KMT-dominated media would only discuss the brawl and not the reason for it.

[Kea]

Was even in the news in Sweden... not impressive at all...

So what would you suggest, Swede? That the DPP sit back and let the KMT ram through any unconstitutional bill they see fit? What's next, a bill to indefinitely extend the life of the legislative and presidency?

As much as I usually don't think these brawls are a good idea, this time there was at least moral justification in trying to stop the vote take place. I think that democracy is worth fighting for, and if such a bill was being pushed in my country I would expect the Opposition to do anything it could to stop it including using force.

Of course most of the international media being under the spell of the KMT-dominated media would only discuss the brawl and not the reason for it.

What was the law passed, and what are the implications. To whit, what does it all mean?

EDIT: Thanks for your reply. That's utterly disgraceful. From both sides. The KMT are really using Ma's reputation (what's left of it) in a desperate power/money grab. The DPP? Well they had their chance and blew it. Poor TW, poorly served by corrupt politicians.

[Cueball]

What was the law passed, and what are the implications. To whit, what does it all mean?

It means that even if the KMT lose the local elections at the end of the year their mayors and other local officials can stay in power as unelected "advisors" for up to four years. DPP victors will be barred from appointing replacements.

I can imagine what will happen.

1. The DPP will win a majority of the new areas up for election.
2. KMT local office holders who stay on will sabotage the merger process to ensure it is delayed again and again so they stay for the full four years.
3. Said officials will also generally sabotage the new DPP chief's plans/policies whilst pretending it's not their fault.
4. The new DPP chiefs will find it very hard to assist the party in the 2012 presidential and legislative elections because they will have little to show for their term in office thanks to KMT obstruction.
5. The KMT will use their friends in the media to blame the new DPP chiefs for all of this.
6. The KMT-led media campaign will mean that at the following elections the KMT will regain control of those areas and total control of local politics apart from DPP strongholds.

Vorkosigan quoted this from Taiwan News on another thread on this topic.

President Ma Ying-jeou and his right-wing Chinese Nationalist Party wrote a new dishonorable page in Taiwan history Monday by ramming a bill through the Legislative Yuan that tramples on the one of the most fundamental of democratic principles, namely the right of citizens to vote and be elected to office for fixed terms.

In a legislative session featuring incessant shoving and occasional slugging, the KMT used its nearly three-fourths majority to ram through revisions to the Local Government Act over intense resistance by the opposition Democratic Progressive Party that will allow the KMT to retain its grip over grassroots administration regardless of who wins year-end mayoral elections for five special metropolises.

The KMT revisions, notably to Article 58, overturn the draft changes approved by the KMT Cabinet last September to ensure the smooth process of upgrading the local administrations in the new "Xinbei City" (formerly Taipei County) and the mergers of Taichung City and Taichung County, Tainan City and Tainan County, and Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County.

The Cabinet's version, which had received bipartisan backing, mandated that township mayors, village chiefs and township and village assembly members would step down when the new metropolitan mayors are inaugurated and be replaced by civil service appointees, as is now the case in Taipei City and Kaohsiung City.

Partisan purposes

However, the KMT shifted gears last week in the wake of the DPP`s sweep of three legislative by-elections on January 10, allegedly due to low turnouts by KMT "mobilization" voters, in the wake of well-orchestrated pressure campaign by KMT grassroots officials who burned party cards and promised further boycotts of KMT candidates unless their future employment was guaranteed.

In the wake of sharp objections by the DPP over such an "unconstitutional" proposal and opposition and outcries of protest by citizen and indigenous rights groups, KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung declared final support for three different versions within as many days last week before settling on the version rammed through the Legislative Yuan yesterday.

Besides questions of the validity of the voting process as numerous KMT lawmakers gathered at the speaker's podium had their voting buttons illegally pushed by other colleagues, the KMT revisions trample on the fundamental democratic "social contract" between the electorate and their elected officials and representatives for regular elections with fixed terms.

Under the revised Article 58, over 50 urban and rural township mayors will continue in office as appointed political officials for up to four years or until the merger of their districts is substantively completed and cannot be dismissed by the incoming metropolitan mayors.

In addition, the revised Article 58-1 will mandate the appointment of former township and village assembly persons as "advisors" and paid for attendance at meetings deemed necessary for the merger process for as long as four years.

As a result, when combined with the one - year extension already mandated by revisions to the same law last year, mayors and assembly members originally elected in December 2005 for four year terms will hold their positions for as long as nine years even though their electoral mandate was only for four years.

There should be few doubts that such officials, which are almost all KMT members, will do their best to delay the completion of this process for a full four years.

Moreover, the KMT revisions will prevent DPP metropolitan mayors from breaking the hold of such KMT local officials and their networks of "black and gold money politics" or even effectively implement their administrative reform programs before the next set of presidential and legislative elections in early 2012.

It should come as no surprise that opinion polls have shown that over two-thirds of citizens of across partisan lines expressed opposition to these changes or that the KMT has decided to ram them through the Legislative Yuan for the sake of its own electoral purposes.

This decision to trample on democratic systems and values for the sake of the KMT's partisan interests is no different in spirit from the indefinite extension by the late KMT dictator Chiang Kai-shek of the terms of parliamentary bodies elected on the China mainland pending "completion of the KMT's "sacred task" of "recovery" of the China mainland from the "bandit" Chinese Communist Party.

[TheLostSwede]

No, that's not the point, you don't use fisticuffs to solve something like this, that's not very "democratic" now, is it? No matter how wrong the new law is, this isn't exactly the way you prevent it from being passed, is it? How come things like this doesn't happen in other democratic countries when there's a vote on a new law being passed?
But then again, judging by your comment, violence is ok, as long as it's used the right way...