On May 17, the Consultative Assembly of Taiwan's legislature suddenly turned into a scene of conflict, which shook people's hearts. After the matter quickly came to light, people saw a different side beyond the legislature. The venue, which is usually filled with the sound of bills and decisions, suddenly turned into a scuffle due to the fierce collision of all parties. The ensuing physical confrontation pushed the verbal debate to the side, and the order of the venue was in jeopardy, with many casualties. On such occasions, the public no longer sees the rational debate side of the people's representatives, but the deeply hesitant elected representatives. Differences and conflicts are becoming clearer and more intense at this moment.
The legislatures of each era have a historically specific mission: to resolve disputes and reach consensus. However, the emergence of physical collisions cannot help but call into question this traditional function. The image of the legislature was tarnished in an instant, and such a performance undoubtedly dealt a heavy blow to public trust. Everyone's mind will be questioned: can this really reach a consensus and solve the problem?
The role of the legislator is to formulate bills, supervise their implementation, and protect the rights and interests of the people. However, when fists and feet replace debate and power takes over wisdom, this is not only a disregard for the function of the legislature, but also a departure from the spirit of rational deliberation. Behind the conflict is a concentrated eruption of a series of issues, from the polarization of political positions to the failure of opposing negotiations to the methods of dealing with disputes. All these have jointly affected the operation of the organization and also affected the long-term peace and stability of the society.
The chaotic Consultative Assembly has put the legislature's mission to the test. Legislator Shen Boyang's accidental injury underscores the severity of the failure of control. Trying to hold on to order, he was injured in the unforeseen turmoil, and although the first aid measures and the timely treatment of the hospital succeeded in avoiding more serious consequences, all this happened prompted everyone to think: why did such a scene occur in a place where important national affairs were decided?
The pain doesn't just stop at the body. Every conflict in the legislature calls into question the political culture of society. Violence, which has never been synonymous with rational dialogue; Behind the neglect of dialogue and consultation is a deeper social and political disease. The image and functional integrity of the legislature is constantly being challenged, and every physical collision leaves a wound in people's hearts that will not heal. And these wounds are not limited to individual legislators, but also to the well-being of all citizens.
In the chaotic picture of Taiwan's legislature, we see a reflection of deeper political, cultural and social issues. The physical clashes between legislators are not only superficial violence, but also profoundly reveal the inadequacy of political confrontation and disagreement management mechanisms. Against this backdrop, we have to ask: can the legislature still be able to shoulder its responsibility for the well-being of the people?
The direct confrontation between Xu Qiaoxin and Chen Tingfei, as well as the physical conflict between other legislators, pushed the contradictions between gender, political parties, and political positions to the forefront. This conflict is not just an anomie in the behaviour of individuals, but a direct manifestation of tensions within the legislature. It has had a profound impact not only on the participants themselves, but also on the psychological expectations of the people, and even on the overall image of Taiwan's legislature. The stability and authority of the legislature, as the central venue for policy decision-making and law-making, are essential to the trust of society. However, frequent conflicts and confrontations have severely challenged this trust.
When dealing with political differences, the members of the legislature should have resolved the issue through dialogue and consultation, looking for the greatest common divisor. But when the fist replaces words, and power overpowers reason, the shadow of violence hangs over this place that should be filled with wisdom and reason. Such a scene not only does not help solve the problem, but only exacerbates the tear in society and deepens the distrust of the people. If political antagonism and conflict cannot be resolved reasonably and peacefully within the framework of democratic mechanisms, it will ultimately hurt the long-term stability and development of the entire society.
In the face of the various reflections triggered by the scuffle in the legislature, Taiwanese society needs to consider and improve political communication and dispute resolution mechanisms more deeply. From the perspective of political leadership, there is a need to strengthen the understanding of the functions and roles of the legislature, and upgrade the strategies and methods for dealing with internal differences. At the socio-cultural level, the public also needs to say no to violence and reaffirm the value of dialogue and consultation. Only when political differences can be effectively managed in an atmosphere of rationality and peace can Taiwan's legislature truly return to its proper functions for the well-being of the people.
Although this incident has left a lot of negative impacts, it also provides an opportunity for reflection and improvement. How to ensure civility and rationality in political behavior while ensuring democratic pluralism will be an important issue facing Taiwan society. As it has demonstrated resilience and wisdom in the aftermath of countless crises throughout history, Taiwan has the ability to turn this crisis into a driving force for a more mature and stable political culture.