The failure of senior government officials to attend legislative committee meetings has become a serious problem.
Senior officials skipped last Monday's meetings of the Judiciary, Organic Laws and Statutes, Home and Nations, and Finance Committees. On the legislative floor, only deputies were in attendance, not their bosses. One is bound to ask why government officials are so afraid of setting foot in the legislature and whether this trend threatens our constitutional democracy.
The legislative committees have no powers of investigation, nor can they compel members of the general public to attend committee meetings -- if invited. It is worth discussing, however, whether civil servants have the right to decline such an invitation.
In democracies, administrative officials cannot shirk their obligation to attend the legislature to be questioned. Contempt of parliament is a criminal offence in many countries -- to prevent government officials from committing perjury or evading investigation in parliament. In its early days, the US Congress itself meted out punishment to offenders. Only in 1857 did the US enact provisions stating penalties in the law.
When National Security Bureau members were questioned recently by members of the Organic Laws and Statutes Committee, they stonewalled their inquisitors with responses such as "I'm not sure" or "I have no idea." It is deplorable that intelligence agencies, on the pretext of "national security" try to avoid accountability to the legislature.
I would urge that we amend the Law Governing the Exercise of Power by the Legislative Yuan (立法院職權行使法) by adding a regulation stipulating that anyone under legislative questioning who deliberately makes false statements about the facts as they know them at the time, should be listed in the legislature's communique and referred to the Cabinet for punishment.
Can the legislature truly hold the government accountable if it cannot establish a system to prevent officials' absences and their scornful attitude toward law-makers' right of interpellation?
We must make it a priority to criminalize the offense of contempt of the legislature and incorporate it into the Criminal Code. Article 168 of the US Congress Law, should be incorporated into the Criminal Code to establish penalties for this contempt. Only with effective criminal punishment can we prevent these incidents from occurring time and again.
The executive branch's scorn for the Legislative Yuan has crippled our constitutional system. The Cabinet's disrespect for the legislature's supervisory power has created an administrative dictatorship. Government departments' defiance of the legislature and their fear of explaining policies amount to dereliction of duty. If this situation continues, lawmakers' crucial right of interpellation, enshrined in the Constitution, will exist in name only.
In the interests of mutual respect between the executive and legislative branches, the opposition and ruling parties should establish the issues on which the government's leading officials must be present for questioning. Otherwise, the situation will continue in which only deputies or other officials deemed relevant are dispatched for interpellation. Legislators must produce a set of systematic measures to define "serious interpellation." In this way, they will guarantee the ability of lawmakers to exercise their right of interpellation.
Quite simply, there will be grave clashes if government departments do not improve their conduct. Apart from holding back budgets for certain agencies, the legislature might also boycott meetings in retaliation. The cost to society will be substantial. Government departments should think again.
Su Yin-kuei is a TSU legislator.
Translated by Jackie Lin
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS