As a Taiwan Fellowship scholar at National Chung Hsing University and a former officer of the secretariat of the Indian Parliament, which is currently constructing a new parliament building, I read with great interest recent articles about a proposal to construct a new building for the Legislative Yuan and feel impelled to share India’s example.
Most of the Indian Parliament’s buildings were constructed in olden times: Many show signs of aging and struggle to meet the demands of the present day in terms of space, quality and technology. However, since the iconic buildings have great historical value, the authorities are faced with the challenges of maintaining change with continuity.
As India and Taiwan share a convergence of democratic values and parliamentary procedural nuances, Taiwan might benefit from India’s experiences in the conceptualization of the building design, if not the construction — as Taiwan is advanced in this regard — and at a time when the relationship between India and Taiwan is on an upward trajectory.
The present Parliament House is an iconic piece of architecture whose foundation was laid more than a century ago in 1921, when the country was under British rule. The building was inaugurated in January 1927 by the then-viceroy of India Lord Irwin. The Central Legislative Assembly met for the first time in the newly built Parliament House when India was under British rule. The building has been witness to many historic events in the annals of India’s history. The Constituent Assembly adopted the constitution of India in the magnificent Central Hall of the Parliament Building. The building resonates with India’s hallowed history.
However, with the passage of time, the building has reached the threshold of its limits. A report by the secretariat of the Lok Sabha (Popular House) said that the building has been showing signs of distress due to overutilization.
Changing circumstances and advances in technology have necessitated a demand in terms of space, amenities and technology upgrades. Fire safety measures have also been upgraded. A building that hosts high dignitaries like the president, and the prime minister when the Parliament is in session, besides ranking ministers and members of Parliament, can ill afford to compromise on safety and security. Considering all these aspects, the authorities decided to construct a new building for the Parliament.
Yet one more consideration for the need for a new Parliament building is an anticipated increase in the number of seats for both houses of India’s bicameral Parliament. The size of India’s Parliament is being increased from time to time as per the provisions of the constitution corresponding to the population increase. The first Lok Sabha had 499 members, which was increased to 500 through a constitutional amendment in 1956, and increased again in 1973 to 525 and later rose to 530. Similarly, the number of seats in the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) has increased over the years resulting in a space crunch in the debating chambers. After the delimitation of the constituencies of the Lok Sabha and state legislatures is completed, the number of seats in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha is likely to rise further. The issue was also a factor when deciding whether to construct a new parliament building.
It was against this backdrop that the foundation stone of the new parliament building within the precinct’s sprawling Parliament House complex was laid by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Dec. 10, 2020. The construction of the ultra-modern new parliament building is nearing completion in record time and is envisaged to be inaugurated on the occasion of India’s 75th Independence Day this year.
While laying the foundation, Modi said: “If the old Parliament House gave direction to post-independence India, the new building would become a witness to the making of Atmanirbhar Bharat [self-reliant India]. If the old Parliament House worked to fulfill the needs of the country, then the aspirations of 21st century India will be fulfilled in the new building.”
Modi’s message was loud and clear: Institutions are not built from bricks and mortar, but by the people inside them. This includes the officers and staff who help run Parliament, who must be professional, conversant with laws, rules and procedures, and knowledgeable.
Rup Narayan Das is a former officer of the Lok Sabha Secretariat of the Indian Parliament and a Taiwan Fellowship scholar.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS