After the Legislative Yuan lost its role as a rubber stamp for the policies of the Kuomintang-led martial law era, the body turned into a competitive arena where the opposition, still in a minority, tried to gain attention by making lots of noise, sometimes literally.
Starting with the late 1980s, some lawmakers used high-profile tactics designed to prevent the overwhelming majority from passing anything it wanted. Even after direct elections for the full Legislature were introduced in 1992, sporadic fights still broke out.
Occasionally, there were full-scale fights, with legislators throwing books or shoes at the head of the legislative speaker, jumping on top of lecterns or pulling somebody else off them, barricading doors with chairs and ripping out microphones.
Footage of the antics at the Legislative Yuan went around the world and gave Taiwanese politics a global reputation for chaos and violence and an image which was the complete opposite of what the country and its people stood for.
The frequency of such clashes diminished gradually, seeming to point in the direction of a more rational way of conducting government-opposition relations. However, when a KMT lawmaker tried to force through a controversial trade pact with China within the space of a minute in 2014, he provoked a new round of confrontation which culminated in the occupation of the Legislative Yuan by the Sunflower Movement.
Last January 16, Taiwanese voters brought in a thorough change in the political landscape, with not only the country’s first-ever woman president taking charge, but also the first-ever majority for her Democratic Progressive Party.
Anybody who thought that one of the consequences of the election results would be a change in the image and climate of the institution has been proven wrong by the events of the past few days.
On July 25, the Legislative Yuan spent a full day trying to approve a proposal for guidelines on how to deal with assets illegally acquired in the wake of the end of Japanese colonization in 1945. The KMT was radically opposed to the proposals, saying they were too obviously targeted at the party, even though of course, the illegal acquisition of assets was precisely a problem of the KMT and only the KMT in the early years of its move to Taiwan.
The Legislative Yuan succeeded in adopting a version of the guidelines, but it seems the KMT wanted to exact its revenge by making a completely unrelated item on the summer session’s agenda as difficult as possible.
The 2016 budgets of the state-run enterprises became the victim of KMT intransigence and became the target for more than 1,600 amendments and proposals from the opposition party.
As a result, the Legislative Yuan decided to allow a go-for-broke voting session destined to last from Tuesday evening until the end of Friday, or about 80 hours of almost uninterrupted voting.
The move, initiated under pressure from the KMT motions, was completely unnecessary and unhelpful.
First of all, as a way of obstructing government proposals it was not valid, since the budgets had been drawn up and submitted during the previous KMT administration of President Ma Ying-jeou, and could therefore not be rejected by the KMT on a purely partisan basis.
Secondly, having lawmakers vote on 1,000 to 2,000 proposals one after the other cannot be productive, as there will be no room for what legislators should be doing, namely conduct a peaceful in-depth debate on the pros and cons of the issues at stake.
Television footage from the Legislative Yuan showed lawmakers playing on their phones, reading, sleeping, eating or pushing the voting buttons on behalf of absent colleagues.
Legislative work does include voting, but it should be the result of careful consideration of the issues, and not just a partisan match designed to make things difficult for the other side.
It took the faltering health of a female member of staff of the Legislative Yuan to bring back some reason into the process. After the woman was found unconscious Wednesday evening and taken to hospital by ambulance, the legislative leadership decided to close shop for the night and to launch a new round of discussions the following day.
The talks ended with an agreement Thursday that the session would not last beyond 6 p.m. Friday. Even so, there should be thorough reflection by lawmakers and by the political parties on the future of legislative practice.
The scenes of the past few days should never be repeated if Taiwan wants to be known as a mature democracy.
The KMT should abandon its plans for revenge and accept that its failure to handle the topic of the ill-gotten assets for so many years while it was in power has now come back to haunt it. Obstruction and vengeance will not help it win the sympathy and support it needs if it ever wants to play a major role in Taiwanese politics again.
Whatever the issue at hand, constructive debate should always take precedence over violent conflict or puerile filibustering tactics.
The Taiwanese public expects the Legislative Yuan to leave behind its circus years and to grow into a forum for mature debate about the multitude of reform issues waiting to be dealt with.