Faced with widespread criticism, legislators have "stood up" against legislator Lo Fu-chu's (羅福助) assault on his colleague Diane Lee (李慶安). Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) ruled that the case should be handed over to the legislature's Discipline Commit-tee, which then punished a legislator for the first time since last year's elections by recommending that Lo be suspended for six months. However, in the legislature, where hypocrisy is rampant, whether or not a two-thirds majority can be obtained to approve this most severe of punishments remains to be seen.
Even if a six-month suspension is approved, the meaning of "suspension" is not yet clear. If suspension merely causes Lo to lose face, it has no real use as a punishment.
According to article 28 of the Legislators' Conduct Act (立法委員行為法), when the Discipline Committee considers a case, it must report to the legislature, depending on the seriousness of the particular circumstances, and decide upon one of the following punishments: an oral or written apology; forbidding the offender to attend between four and eight meetings of the legislature; or suspending the offender for three to six months subject to approval by a two-thirds majority in the legislature. Since the legislature has never suspended a member, there will undoubtedly be arguments about the punishment.
During the discussions in the Discipline Committee a few days ago, some legislators and advisors mentioned that suspension means suspending the authority of a legislator, who would therefore stop attending meetings of the legislature, committee meetings, or interpellation sessions and would no longer be protected by the constitutional immunity from prosecution for any statements he or she might make. Lo, however, would maintain his status as a legislator and he would still enjoy immunity from arrest for the duration of the legislative session. This punishment amounts to no more than letting Lo take a six-month vacation.
Many "businessman-legislators" spend long periods of time in China. They don't attend meetings or interpellation sessions, apart from making an appearance at the beginning of each legislative session. But these legislators collect their salaries, as well as reimbursements for the expense of hiring assistants, travel and other related costs. Shady "lobbyists" and "protected" industries also make use of the influence of these legislators in the usual manner. Punishing Lo with suspension would merely be suspending his formal authority while he collects his salary and reimbursements as usual. Meanwhile, his office could issue statements to handle requests from members of his constituency and make use of his influence as a legislator.
Suspension should be equivalent to dismissal. When a legislator's authority is suspended, salary and reimbursements should also be discontinued. He or she should stop handling affairs for constituents. Only when suspension involves all of the above will it be meaningful.
In other democratic countries the disciplining of legislators can easily become a political quarrel. But preventing violence is a matter on which all can agree. The disciplinary action against Lo is not a matter of finding a scapegoat and it must not be handled in a perfunctory way. We should take this opportunity to clarify and systematize punishments for inappropriate behavior. A severe interpretation of suspension should be adopted to establish disciplinary standards. In the future, when legislators behave inappropriately, their cases should be immediately handed over for disciplinary action according to clear provisions for punishment. Such behavior then won't spread unchecked.
Lee Ching-hsiung is a legislator of the Taiwan Independence Party.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS