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.
Recently, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) hastily pushed amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) through the Legislative Yuan, sparking widespread public concern. The legislative process was marked by opaque decisionmaking and expedited proceedings, raising alarms about its potential impact on the economy, national defense, and international standing. Those amendments prioritize short-term political gains at the expense of long-term national security and development. The amendments mandate that the central government transfer about NT$375.3 billion (US$11.47 billion) annually to local governments. While ostensibly aimed at enhancing local development, the lack
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Having enjoyed contributing regular essays to the Liberty Times and Taipei Times now for several years, I feel it is time to pull back. As some of my readers know, I have enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Taiwan. My most recent visit was just a few months ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a major conference in Taipei. Unfortunately, my trip intersected with Double Ten celebrations, so I missed the opportunity to call on friends in government, as well as colleagues in the new AIT building, that replaced the old Xin-yi Road complex. I have
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an
RSS