The origin of immunity for spoken remarks or speeches can be traced back to 17th century Britain. At that time, the executive branch often relied on the judiciary to attack the legislative branch. Since then, however, legislative representatives have been transformed from the oppressed into the oppressors. Thus, western countries have moved away from absolute immunity with regards to legislative speech.
In Taiwan such immunity is provided by Article 73 of the Constitution -- "No member of the Legislative Yuan shall be held responsible outside the Yuan for opinion expressed ... in the Yuan." Article 50 of the "Local Autonomy Law"
The law and judicial opinions extend only relative, rather than absolute, immunity to the legislators. However, abuse of this immunity has been rampant. Administrative officials constantly face verbal abuse and defamatory allegations, including attacks on their family, when interpellating at the legislature and local councils.
Taiwan's legislative culture is virtually a miniature version of its "black gold" political culture. Lobbying for government procurement or construction contracts and personnel appointments is a full-time job for legislative representatives, while reviewing bills and supervising the government has been reduced to a part-time job or just a means to accomplish their personal objectives.
Therefore, it is common place for legislators to retaliate for failed lobbying attempts by deliberately boycotting bills and budgets. Worst case-scenarios include abusively lambasting officials during interpellations or making false accusations of bribe-taking or other offenses. Officials bear the insults in silence for the sake of keeping peace and harmony between the executive and legislative organs.
The passivity of administrative officials in the face of such abusive behavior only encouraged such attacks. These deformities of democracy, substantive proof of the deterioration of Taiwan's political culture, are loathed by the people. Administrative officials should have the moral courage to strike back.
Although legislators are backed by popular support, the voters did not vote for them so that they could insult government officials. The legislators must possess a certain degree of professional and legislative ethics, rather than act as they please.
An important target for the political reform in Taiwan is the culture of "black gold" politics. Reforms should protect people who criticize and expose the corruption of legislators, and encourage the administrative officials to bravely confront their verbal attacks. When faced with verbal humiliation from the legislators, they should file lawsuits to seek legal remedy to protect their reputations rather than suffer in silence.
The harmony between legislative and executive branches is important for any government. However, sacrificing the integrity of our system and compromising personal dignity is foolish and only contributes to Taiwan's degeneration.
The people now have high hopes of eliminating "black gold" politics. To do so, officials must resist improper legislative culture. Legal speech immunity does not include immunity from political accountability and responsibility. Suing a legislator does not guarantee that you will win, however, it is one way to let the people know the truth, so they can cast their votes accordingly.
Lee Ching-hsiung is a DPP legislator.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS