Why Do Violent Fights Frequently Break Out in Taiwan’s Parliament?
Violence breaks out in Taiwan’s Parliament once again.
Major media outlets around the world have reported this news.
This time, the conflict in Taiwan’s Parliament revolved around a series of legislative reform bills. At the beginning of 2024, following the parliamentary elections, the Kuomintang and the Taiwan People’s Party formed a majority coalition. The two parties introduced a set of legislative reform bills, which included highly controversial proposals such as the offense of contempt of Parliament, greater scrutiny powers for Parliament over the government, and a mandate for the President to deliver regular State of the Union addresses. Leveraging their majority in Parliament, the Kuomintang and TPP attempted to swiftly pass these reforms within a few days. This prompted strong resistance from the minority party, the Democratic Progressive Party, leading to fierce clashes within Parliament that ultimately escalated into a brawl.
This is not the first time violent conflicts have occurred in Taiwan’s Parliament.
In addition to individual clashes between members, large-scale physical fights also happen from time to time.
In 2014, when the Kuomintang, holding the majority in Parliament, attempted to pass the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement with Mainland China, fierce clashes broke out between Democratic Progressive Party and Kuomintang members. The conflict eventually escalated into students and citizens occupying Parliament, leading to the Sunflower Student Movement in opposition to the agreement.
Why Do Violent Fights Frequently Break Out in Taiwan’s Parliament?
Let’s take a look at Taiwan’s government structure. Taiwan’s Parliament adopts a unicameral system. If a bill is passed in the single-house Parliament, it is then submitted to the President for approval or veto. It is conceivable that if one party holds a majority in a unicameral Parliament and the President is also from that party, the party can quickly pass bills as long as there is internal consensus. Meanwhile, the opposition, as the minority, can hardly stop the bills through parliamentary debate with limited debate time.
The 2014 Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement is essentially an example of this situation. At that time, the Kuomintang was the largest party in Parliament, and the President was also from the Kuomintang. The Kuomintang attempted to swiftly pass the bill.
In such circumstances, it seems that the only options left for the opposition are violent fights in Parliament or resorting to more radical mass movements.
This time, the conflict in Parliament over the legislative reform bills was actually unnecessary because the current President of Taiwan is from the Democratic Progressive Party. Even if the Kuomintang passes the bills in Parliament, the President can still veto them. But the violent conflicts in Taiwan’s Parliament highlight the fragility of its parliamentary politics.
For a comparison, let’s take a look at the United States.
Although there have been occasional fights in Congress throughout American history, such incidents are rare. This is because the structure and functions of the U.S. Congress are much more complex than those of Taiwan’s Parliament. Unlike Taiwan’s single-house Parliament, the U.S. Congress is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. A bill must be passed by both chambers before it can be submitted to the President. If the majority parties in the Senate and the House are different, a bill is likely to face deadlock in Congress. There are many examples of this, such as the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 for gun control. The bill was passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives but was blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate, preventing the bill from ultimately becoming law.
If both the Senate and the House are dominated by a single party, can that party easily pass its proposed bills with internal consensus? In fact, the opposition can still obstruct the passage of a bill, which brings us to the filibuster mechanism in the U.S. Congress.
The filibuster is only practiced in the Senate. Even if only one senator opposes a bill, that senator can use the filibuster to extend the debate, thereby blocking or delaying the vote on the bill. To end a filibuster and proceed to the final vote, other senators can file a cloture motion. Passing a cloture motion typically requires the support of 60 votes or a three-fifths majority of the senators present.
There are several notable examples of successful filibusters. For instance, in 2010, both the Senate and the House were controlled by the Democratic Party, and the President was Democrat Barack Obama. The Democrats introduced a bill called the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the DREAM Act. This proposal aimed to provide a legal residency pathway for young people who were brought to the United States illegally as children. The Democrats used their House majority to pass the DREAM Act with a vote of 216 to 198 and gained 55 to 41 votes of support in the Senate. However, Republican senators used the filibuster strategy to extend the debate and block the bill. The Democrats filed a cloture motion to end the debate but failed to obtain the necessary 60 votes. Ultimately, the filibuster was successful, and the bill could not pass in the Senate.
This illustrates the complexity of the U.S. legislative process, where even with both chambers and the presidency controlled by the same party, the minority party can significantly impact the legislative process through the filibuster.
In contrast, Taiwan not only adopts a unicameral system but also lacks a filibuster mechanism. The debate time for each legislator is strictly limited by the Speaker. This is a major reason for the instability in Taiwan’s Parliament.
In fact, the official name of Taiwan’s Parliament is the Legislative Yuan, and the official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China.
Historically, the Republic of China once adopted a bicameral system. In 1923, the Beiyang government of the Republic of China passed the Constitution of the Republic of China. According to this constitution, Congress was divided into the Senate and the House, and the President was elected jointly by the two chambers. This constitution was promulgated and implemented by then-President Cao Kun.
However, China was in the midst of a civil war at that time. The Beiyang government quickly failed in the civil war, and the Kuomintang, supported by the Soviet Union, gained military and political power over the Republic of China. Based on the theories of one of the Republic of China’s principal founders, Sun Yat-sen, the Kuomintang established a new five-branch constitutional system. The government was composed of the Executive Yuan, Legislative Yuan, Judicial Yuan, Control Yuan, and Examination Yuan. In addition to the traditional three branches of government found in Western systems, they added two more branches: the Control Yuan and the Examination Yuan, which seem a bit redundant.
Let’s focus on three major branches: the Executive Yuan, the Legislative Yuan, and the Judicial Yuan. According to the 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China, the heads of the Executive Yuan and the Judicial Yuan were nominated by the President, while the Legislative Yuan was elected by popular vote. The President was not elected by popular vote or by the Legislative Yuan but was chosen by an institution called the National Assembly. This National Assembly operated independently of other institutions, and its election methods were not transparent, similar to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. In 1949, the Kuomintang lost the civil war to the Communists and fled to Taiwan, where they established an authoritarian government. The National Assembly and the Legislative Yuan did not hold regular elections for a long time, becoming fossilized institutions until the 1990s. People were often confused: Which is the true legislative body, the so-called National Assembly or the Legislative Yuan?
In the 1990s, during President Lee Teng-hui’s term, Taiwan began democratic reforms. Eventually, the President was elected by direct popular vote instead of being selected by the largely ceremonial National Assembly, which was then abolished. The Legislative Yuan became Taiwan’s sole legislative body, marking the beginning of Taiwan’s unicameral system.
Many countries transitioning from authoritarian to democratic governments have adopted a unicameral congress system. For example, after the Korean War in the 1950s, South Korea originally used a bicameral system, but following the dictatorship of Park Chung-hee, the reconstructed National Assembly in the 1980s adopted a unicameral system. Consequently, South Korea faces similar issues to Taiwan. As long as the President and the parliamentary majority come from the same party, that party can push its bills through legislation. The opposition can only resist through parliamentary violence and street protests.
We also see similar behavior in Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, and other countries.
Of course, countries with a bicameral parliamentary system can also experience parliamentary brawls, such as Japan. However, due to the more stable structure of a bicameral system, the Japanese public has paid less attention to parliamentary conflicts in recent days.
In summary, the root cause of violent conflicts in Taiwan’s Parliament lies in the fragility of its unicameral system, which prevents the parliamentary minority from fully and peacefully expressing their opinions. If Taiwan’s Parliament does not want to rely on parliamentary violence and street protests as means of objection, it might consider adopting a formal filibuster system like the one in the United States. South Korea introduced a filibuster system in 2012, which could serve as a valuable reference for Taiwan.
The documentary you are watching is a production by Snowboat Studio. Thank you for watching/reading.
More Videos Please See my channel: Snowboat Studio
