The origin of immunity for spoken remarks or speeches can be traced back to 17th century Britain. At that time, the executive branch often relied on the judiciary to attack the legislative branch. Since then, however, legislative representatives have been transformed from the oppressed into the oppressors. Thus, western countries have moved away from absolute immunity with regards to legislative speech.
In Taiwan such immunity is provided by Article 73 of the Constitution -- "No member of the Legislative Yuan shall be held responsible outside the Yuan for opinion expressed ... in the Yuan." Article 50 of the "Local Autonomy Law"
The law and judicial opinions extend only relative, rather than absolute, immunity to the legislators. However, abuse of this immunity has been rampant. Administrative officials constantly face verbal abuse and defamatory allegations, including attacks on their family, when interpellating at the legislature and local councils.
Taiwan's legislative culture is virtually a miniature version of its "black gold" political culture. Lobbying for government procurement or construction contracts and personnel appointments is a full-time job for legislative representatives, while reviewing bills and supervising the government has been reduced to a part-time job or just a means to accomplish their personal objectives.
Therefore, it is common place for legislators to retaliate for failed lobbying attempts by deliberately boycotting bills and budgets. Worst case-scenarios include abusively lambasting officials during interpellations or making false accusations of bribe-taking or other offenses. Officials bear the insults in silence for the sake of keeping peace and harmony between the executive and legislative organs.
The passivity of administrative officials in the face of such abusive behavior only encouraged such attacks. These deformities of democracy, substantive proof of the deterioration of Taiwan's political culture, are loathed by the people. Administrative officials should have the moral courage to strike back.
Although legislators are backed by popular support, the voters did not vote for them so that they could insult government officials. The legislators must possess a certain degree of professional and legislative ethics, rather than act as they please.
An important target for the political reform in Taiwan is the culture of "black gold" politics. Reforms should protect people who criticize and expose the corruption of legislators, and encourage the administrative officials to bravely confront their verbal attacks. When faced with verbal humiliation from the legislators, they should file lawsuits to seek legal remedy to protect their reputations rather than suffer in silence.
The harmony between legislative and executive branches is important for any government. However, sacrificing the integrity of our system and compromising personal dignity is foolish and only contributes to Taiwan's degeneration.
The people now have high hopes of eliminating "black gold" politics. To do so, officials must resist improper legislative culture. Legal speech immunity does not include immunity from political accountability and responsibility. Suing a legislator does not guarantee that you will win, however, it is one way to let the people know the truth, so they can cast their votes accordingly.
Lee Ching-hsiung is a DPP legislator.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS