The opposition parties wished to expand the power of the Legislative Yuan — without a clear understanding of the differences between the Taiwanese and US systems — and proposed an amendment for a charge of “contempt of the legislature.”
This is akin to taping a dull vegetable knife to the end of a bamboo pole and calling it a spear.
It is true that the US has a “contempt of Congress” charge, but this was established under a separation of powers framework under the US constitution and was supplemented by the US Congress’ regulations and needs.
The blue-white coalition in the Legislative Yuan has rearranged the seating and turned the legislature into their own self-important performance stage. If they do not expand legislative powers, then they would shrink their own performance space.
People had hoped that the direction of legislature reforms would bolster its self-governance and transparency. However, it has instead been transformed into an exhibition gallery for absurd draft legislation.
One of the latest absurdities is this proposal for the charge of “contempt of the legislature.”
Opposition parties claim that they are emulating the US model. However, the US’ version was established by a bicameral legislature and on the basis of legislators’ right to inquiry and a hearing.
The US does not have a Control Yuan or similar government with this separation of power.
Moreover, the US Congress’ investigative powers are mostly used on investigations that have legislative necessity and are not supervisory in nature.
In Taiwan, where the government has five separate branches of government, the Control Yuan wields powers of supervisory investigations.
On the other hand, the legislature uses methods such as committees and public hearings to conduct investigations necessary for legislation.
Taiwan’s grand justices have handed down judgements clarifying that although the Legislative Yuan is not restricted from conducting investigations, executive government bodies have the privilege of not being subject to legislative investigations. Moreover, even if the legislature wants access to documents, it cannot obstruct a judicial investigation.
Under legal interpretations by grand justices and the Constitution, the proposal to expand the investigative rights of the legislature would codify it so that whenever one does not comply with an investigation, they would be charged with “contempt of the legislature.”
It is unclear what exactly legislators are attempting to investigate when they think of conducting investigations.
Apparently, the bill’s proposers are obsessed with becoming prosecutors. If that is the case, then they ought not to serve as legislators, but should instead apply to be prosecutors.
Additionally, charges of “contempt of Congress” correspond to the US’ manifold scope of ethics and disciplinary regulations for its lawmakers.
Take the US House of Representatives for example. There are the House Committee on Ethics and the Office of Congressional Ethics, which are responsible for reviewing improper behavior and conduct of lawmakers, and congressional executive staff and personnel. When discipline is needed, a small investigation team is formed, which carries out its investigation through rigorous procedures.
These investigative teams can exact the following measures on lawmakers behaving inappropriately: Demand an apology, issue fines, censure or restrict committee access, publicly condemn or expel the lawmaker from the US Congress and even strip the lawmaker of credentials.
In December last year, former Republican US representative from New York George Santos was expelled from Congress.
The Legislative Yuan, apart from its moderate methods, already has a Legislators’ Conduct Act (立法委員行為法), which is of little use. Self-control and disciplinary regulations are so few that one could count the number of such laws on one’s hands.
There is almost no method of supervision or checks and balances for legislators-at-large, who do not have to face electoral recalls.
Do the legislators who proposed this “contempt of the legislature” draft act want to learn about the US? They are welcome to learn all about US law.
These new legislators do not need to rush to amend the act.
The off-topic conduct of these regulation committee members is instead demanding the improper expansion of powers to greatly turn up the volume of their stage performance.
Having contempt for committee members such as these would honestly be a good thing.
Carol Lin is a professor in the school of technology law at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.
Translated by Tim Smith
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS