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
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