When exactly did Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Legislator Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) join the blue camp? He used to stand with the young people, but now he turns his back on them.
Huang has been urging the legislative reform bills proposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and TPP to be passed.
When the bills were first proposed, I expected them to help replace the chaotic chamber with a more self-disciplined one.
However, instead of trying to introduce order into chaos, the opposition is attempting a power grab, overriding government officials and even Taiwan’s elected head of state.
The bills cover a series of outrageous regulations, and that is why the KMT and TPP resist openly discussing the details.
Legislative reforms are just an excuse. The KMT and the TPP’s real intention is to expand the power of lawmakers. They are brazenly moving the goalposts.
Those who refuse a demand by the legislature or delay their response, conceal information or provide false statements during an investigation or when it reviews documents can be fined NT$10,000 to NT$100,000, according to a change to Article 48, Paragraph 2 of the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power (立法院職權行使法) being proposed by the KMT and the TPP.
Who do the KMT and TPP think they are? Legislators have no right to do that.
Sadly, if the amendments proceed, lawmakers would be given the authority to control the public. That would be an exploitation of human rights, in which politicians are forever superior to the public and are able to punish anyone as they wish.
That is no different than the White Terror era.
We all know that the Legislative Yuan is a place where political parties confront each other. Considering this, lawmakers are not necessarily required to behave in a regulated norm; their ridiculous or stupid words and behaviors are even, to some degree, countenanced by the public.
If lawmakers are given so much room to express their ideas, why is the public not given the equivalent rights to reject an unreasonable query on providing information?
We often worry that the executive power overrides other authorities under a constitutional system. Surprisingly, in Taiwan, it is the legislative floor that seeks to monopolize the governing. That would definitely be a “remarkable” page in the constitutional system.
The Constitution of the Republic of China says that the Legislative Yuan does not have investigative rights. If the KMT and the TPP “empower” themselves to investigate the public by means of making a law, they would ruin the separation of powers.
Even if the legislature is given the right to investigate the public, there should be some limitations. For instance, lawmakers can ask a person to testify in court or to provide information, but they should never be allowed to force anyone to do so.
If a person refuses to comply with the request, the Legislative Yuan could propose a motion to the court to subpoena that person as a witness or to provide evidence.
In terms of fines, the Legislative Yuan should also file a motion to the court to impose sanctions, and the decisions should not be made by the Legislative Yuan itself.
Nonetheless, the KMT and the TPP are trying to give the legislature the ultimate power to impose a sanction only based on resolution in the plenary sitting, but judgement by the courts. Are they trying to bully the public?
Liu Che-chia is secretary-general of the Sovereign State for Formosa and the Pescadores Party.
Translated by Hsieh Yi-ching
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
Taiwan’s leading position in the global semiconductor industry is not, as some claim, based on misconceptions, a result of “stealing.” It was built upon formal, transparent and costly technology transfer agreements between the Taiwanese government and US enterprises half a century ago. According to the oral history of Hu Ding-hua (胡定華), a pioneer in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, the origin of Taiwan’s integrated circuit (IC) technology dates back to the “IC pilot factory” in the 1970s. The implementation of this project fully complied with international commercial standards and legal procedures. First, the project completed formal contract signing and payment. In 1975,
RSS