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
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS