It is hard to imagine that the Legislative Yuan passed three major bills in one day — amendments to the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法) and the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) — amid chaotic clashes.
The legislative process of these three laws violates the spirit of deliberative democracy. Despite having gone through many changes and compromises, the draft bills were hastily passed without discussion and clause-by-clause examination.
Consequently, the legislative intent and purpose — which would be made clear in the discussion during the legislative process — would never be known, causing difficulties in applying, teaching and interpreting the laws.
Moreover, this has led to people having no way to supervise the voting behavior of lawmakers in the legislative process.
The legislature’s passing of bills in this manner is an insult to legal civilization and harms Taiwan’s democracy.
The majority of legislators mess about like this, leaving legal academics no room to defend them. Painful lessons have been seen in history across the world. In Germany in 1933, the Enabling Act was passed by the Reichstag, allowing Adolf Hitler and his Cabinet to pass laws — even laws that violated the constitution — without the consent of the president or the Reichstag itself.
Passing bad bills allowed Latin America to fall into the chaos of military interference in politics and created failed states in Africa. The widespread violence and chaos created by warlords in the early Republic of China stirred up Japan’s ambitions to invade the country.
Bad laws can bring internal strife and a foreign invasion to a country, damaging the economy, people’s livelihood and rights, and leaving the people in a miserable situation of poverty and even killing.
No legal expert or legislator with any sense of conscience would allow such a thing to happen in Taiwan, unless they want Taiwan to fall into chaos and would rather sacrifice people’s freedom.
The people are the masters of the Constitution, and voters have the right and obligation to defend the constitutional order.
In the face of major legislative flaws in the Legislative Yuan, the people should not only protest solemnly against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party, but also initiate petitions such as for referendums to correct the errors of the legislature, exercising the rights of initiative to demand that the Legislative Yuan be dissolved and new elections held, or the rights of referendum to abolish the bad laws that restrict people’s right to recall and constitutional remedy. The constituents could also recall lawmakers who enact unconstitutional legislation.
It should be noted that in a representative democratic system, the people are the masters.
The people have the right to reject unconstitutional legislation to protect their rights and interests, and safeguard the integrity and sustainability of a democratic constitutional government.
Taiwan’s pluralistic democracy and rule of law are based on constitutional order.
People are by no means helpless in the face of the evil deeds by politicians who seek to undermine our free lives.
Yao Meng-chang is an assistant professor in Fu Jen Catholic University’s Department of Postgraduate Legal Studies.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS