it seems to me a civilized country would be conducting it’s business by these rules. the west uses these rules and they work well. say RROO to a taiwanese and they don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.never heard of it.
You’ve got to be kidding.
[quote] Main or Principal Motion is a motion made to bring before the assembly, for its consideration, any particular subject. It takes precedence of nothing – that is, it cannot be made when any other question is before the assembly; and it yields to all Privileged, Incidental, and Subsidiary Motions – that is, any of these motions can be made while a main motion is pending. Main motions are debatable, and subject to amendment, and can have any subsidiary [12] motions applied to them. When a main motion is laid on the table, or postponed to a certain time, it carries with it all pending subsidiary motions. If a main motion is referred to a committee it carries with it only the pending amendments. As a general rule, they require for their adoption only a majority vote – that is, a majority of the votes cast; but amendments to constitutions, by-laws, and rules of order already adopted, all of which are main motions, require a two-thirds vote for their adoption, unless the by-laws, etc., specify a different vote for their amendment; and the motion to rescind action previously taken requires a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, unless previous notice of the motion has been given.
Main motions may be subdivided into Original Main Motions and Incidental Main Motions. Original Main Motions are those which bring before the assembly some new subject, generally in the form of a resolution, upon which action by the assembly is desired. Incidental Main Motions are those main motions that are incidental to, or relate to, the business of the assembly, or its past or future action, as, a committee’s report on a resolution referred to it. A motion to accept or adopt the report of a standing committee upon a subject not referred to it is an original main motion, but a motion to adopt a report on a subject referred to a committee is an incidental main motion. The introduction of an original main motion can be prevented by sustaining by a two-thirds vote an objection to its consideration [23], made just after the main motion is stated and before it is discussed. An objection to its consideration cannot be applied to an incidental main motion, but a two-thirds vote can immediately suppress it by ordering the previous question [29]. This is the only difference between the two classes of main motions. The following list contains some of the most common, etc., etc., etc. [/quote]
I don’t see anything in there about throwing shoes, cellphones or lunchboxes, or strangling the speaker, or chaining the door shut, etc. Apparently the Rules were written in a bygone era and don’t conform to today’s parliamentary procedures.
I observe that they do observe fencing’s Right of Way Rules when throwing shoes, cellphones, or lunchboxes. Unfortunately, there is usually no left in these skirmishes to award points.
it’s a bit too light for any kind of satisfying impact, also the pages tend to splay out, severely affecting accuracy
let me post you some piece of information that you might find relevant as an answer:
from etaiwanews.com, following yesterday’s brawl…
now… with a legislator with this record… what do you expect?
[quote=“mr_boogie”]let me post you some piece of information that you might find relevant as an answer:
from etaiwanews.com, following yesterday’s brawl…
now… with a legislator with this record… what do you expect?[/quote]
I didn’t even know there was a legislative brawl yesterday but you’re wrong to suggest only particular types of Taiwan lawmakers engage in such conduct. Blue, Green, man, woman, butcher, baker, beggar man, thief – all types of Taiwan lawmakers completely lose control, get violent and act like undignified idiots in public, on the job, even more than in the West, largely because the concepts of democracy and of intelligent, educated, professional politicians and of spirited but civil debate aimed at discovering truths and desirable objectives, are all fairly new here. They’re all beginners, just starting to learn how the game should be played and many of them are very slow learners, though in a century or so perhaps Taiwan politics will be more rational and dignified.
Most of them are incompetent, just doing the job for personal gain … they are not worth being called legislators … give them an axe and shield, put them on a remote mountain and have themselves axed up …
Whatever rules they have now must have surely been ignored. It was quite a show. It was only after reading through another thread here did I discover this last episode was not so novel. It’s amazing how these brawls erupt and how completely mad the whole scene looks.
Sure, any civilized country must use Western rules, as if the only civilization in the world were Western.
No sir. The definition of civilization is F-R-E-E-D-U-M. Freedum to run red lights, spit binlang juice and punch each other during a good legislative brawl. That should be the definition of civilization, and the Western world should be A-S-H-A-I-M-E-D fer not adopting it. Hmph.
Because if any rules of order were used in the legislature, the pan-Blues would get their way. They do have a majority, after all.
I was under the mistaken impression that in a democracy, the party with a majority in legislature would have the right to pass laws (pending any balance of power with other branches of government as established in the constitution). In democratic Taiwan, the DPP has other ideas when it finds itself in minority position in the legislature… tear $hit apart.
Why only tear it?
One would lose valuable kiss-ass points if one did not hurl the said item at one’s opponent in a girlish and precocious fashion.
well, looking at the kind of laws the KMT are coming up to these days (even their own legislators start to feel that there is too much “stinking stuff” on them), no wonder the opposition makes this brawls…
Is that really your view of democracy, mr_boogie? That if the opposition disagrees with the kind of laws that the majority party wants to pass, they should simply wreak havoc and prevent the legislature from proceeding?
What kind of laws should the legislature pass, then? Only the ones that both sides are in consensus on? Why even bother with legislative elections at all?
No… but in my country the if governing party goes making laws like the ones the KMT does, they will face the other political parties (not violently in the legislature) and the populace outside the legislature.
What fails in Taiwan is that people see black gold and special groups laws being passed in the legistature, and fail to take the streets to protest. They know the law is unfair, but they prefer to stay in their couches.
But we all know that in democracy, the closer we are to elections, the uglier things become.
All I want is Ma to become President under a Green LY… it would be so funny…
Meanwhile, a PFP councillor was shot today by a gunmen. Initial reports indicate that he had created a lot of enemies in the business community…
[quote=“mr_boogie”]No… but in my country the if governing party goes making laws like the ones the KMT does, they will face the other political parties (not violently in the legislature) and the populace outside the legislature.
What fails in Taiwan is that people see black gold and special groups laws being passed in the legistature, and fail to take the streets to protest. They know the law is unfair, but they prefer to stay in their couches.[/quote]
In the past 7 years, there’ve been a number of marches where approximately 5% of the Taiwanese population have marched on the streets (~1 million). And you’re going to place the blame at their feet?
So, let’s make this clear. You don’t blame DPP legislators for crippling legislative action because they are the minority party; you instead blame the Taiwanese people for… what? Not stopping the KMT, because you obviously believe the KMT should be stopped?
I don’t know why Taiwan bothers with elections. Should we perhaps just appoint you emperor, and you tell us what laws the KMT should be allowed to pass?
uhh?
People here take the streets because of everything except laws. There was the red army, the green army, the blue army and whatever army, and most of them are not making manifestations against laws, just against people.
The laws the KMT made (and some the DPP made) are just rubbish trying to get their support base, nothing more than that. The stalling of the budget, which makes the economy slow down because there is no investment on infrastructures, is a case where only a few legislators and so from the TSU are shouting. For the pan-blue camp, slowing down the economy is not their concern, because they can always say it was CSB fault, and everyone will believe.
I don’t want to be emperor of this country, otherwise half of the politicians would be populating the Taoyuan International Airport trying to run away.
[quote=“cctang”]Because if any rules of order were used in the legislature, the pan-Blues would get their way. They do have a majority, after all.
I was under the mistaken impression that in a democracy, the party with a majority in legislature would have the right to pass laws (pending any balance of power with other branches of government as established in the constitution). In democratic Taiwan, the DPP has other ideas when it finds itself in minority position in the legislature… tear $hit apart.[/quote]
You know, I might actually take Pan-Blue criticism seriously if they were actually to take action on the now nearly SIX-MONTH late budget for the year 2007 that has not yet passed. It was due on November 30 LAST YEAR, but the do-nothing Blue legislature has, as usually, done nothing!
HA!!!
I’ve just discovered that Roberts Rules of Order are used in Taiwan. See Article 11 for instance:
[quote]11. A Main or Principal Motion is a motion made to hurl a lunch box, cell phone, cup of feces or other matter before the assembly, for its consideration, during the deliberation of any particular subject. It takes precedence of everything – that is, it can be made regardless of whether any other question is before the assembly; and it does not yield to any Privileged, Incidental, or Subsidiary Motions – that is, it can be made while any other motion is pending.
Main motions are debatable, and subject to amendment, and can have any subsidiary motions applied to them – that is, during the course of a motion to hurl a lunch box, for purposes of example, the lunch box may be withdrawn and a cup of feces may be hurled in its place, or a cell phone and a shoe may be hurled alongside the lunch box. When a main motion is hurled across the table, it may carry with it all pending subsidiary motions which are caught in the line of fire.
If a main motion is aimed at a committee it may be accompanied by subsidiary motions to ensure maximum contact with members of the committe. As a general rule, they require for their adoption only a mere grudge or opposition to a question at hand – that is, no vote is required to be cast prior to casting of the matter at hand; but the casting of a Main Motion during the discussion of amendments to constitutions, by-laws, and rules of order already adopted, requires the casting of matters by at least 3 members, followed by a choking, kicking or pulling of hair, unless the by-laws, etc., specify a different requirement for such motions; although the Motion to Fling Feces may be made regardless of any requirements prohibiting such a motion.[/quote]
I think the pan-Blues have been pretty clear on this one.
If the pan-Greens continue to use physical assaults in order to block legislation they don’t agree with, don’t expect the pan-Blues to play along on legislation that the Greens find desirable.
What exactly is your fair and balanced suggestion, ludahai? The pan-Blues should just pass the laws that the Greens support, and throw away the ones that the Greens don’t support? I guess this whole democracy thing is more complicated than I thought, and majority doesn’t mean a whole lot.
I think the pan-Blues have been pretty clear on this one.
If the pan-Greens continue to use physical assaults in order to block legislation they don’t agree with, don’t expect the pan-Blues to play along on legislation that the Greens find desirable.
What exactly is your fair and balanced suggestion, ludahai? The pan-Blues should just pass the laws that the Greens support, and throw away the ones that the Greens don’t support? I guess this whole democracy thing is more complicated than I thought, and majority doesn’t mean a whole lot.[/quote]
We are talking about a government BUDGET here, not a law. The Blues are now nearly SIX MONTHS late with the government budget. The law that they want to pass is clearly not only unconstitutional, but inherently illogical as elections are an administrative function of government, not legislative.