Faced with widespread criticism, legislators have "stood up" against legislator Lo Fu-chu's (羅福助) assault on his colleague Diane Lee (李慶安). Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) ruled that the case should be handed over to the legislature's Discipline Commit-tee, which then punished a legislator for the first time since last year's elections by recommending that Lo be suspended for six months. However, in the legislature, where hypocrisy is rampant, whether or not a two-thirds majority can be obtained to approve this most severe of punishments remains to be seen.
Even if a six-month suspension is approved, the meaning of "suspension" is not yet clear. If suspension merely causes Lo to lose face, it has no real use as a punishment.
According to article 28 of the Legislators' Conduct Act (立法委員行為法), when the Discipline Committee considers a case, it must report to the legislature, depending on the seriousness of the particular circumstances, and decide upon one of the following punishments: an oral or written apology; forbidding the offender to attend between four and eight meetings of the legislature; or suspending the offender for three to six months subject to approval by a two-thirds majority in the legislature. Since the legislature has never suspended a member, there will undoubtedly be arguments about the punishment.
During the discussions in the Discipline Committee a few days ago, some legislators and advisors mentioned that suspension means suspending the authority of a legislator, who would therefore stop attending meetings of the legislature, committee meetings, or interpellation sessions and would no longer be protected by the constitutional immunity from prosecution for any statements he or she might make. Lo, however, would maintain his status as a legislator and he would still enjoy immunity from arrest for the duration of the legislative session. This punishment amounts to no more than letting Lo take a six-month vacation.
Many "businessman-legislators" spend long periods of time in China. They don't attend meetings or interpellation sessions, apart from making an appearance at the beginning of each legislative session. But these legislators collect their salaries, as well as reimbursements for the expense of hiring assistants, travel and other related costs. Shady "lobbyists" and "protected" industries also make use of the influence of these legislators in the usual manner. Punishing Lo with suspension would merely be suspending his formal authority while he collects his salary and reimbursements as usual. Meanwhile, his office could issue statements to handle requests from members of his constituency and make use of his influence as a legislator.
Suspension should be equivalent to dismissal. When a legislator's authority is suspended, salary and reimbursements should also be discontinued. He or she should stop handling affairs for constituents. Only when suspension involves all of the above will it be meaningful.
In other democratic countries the disciplining of legislators can easily become a political quarrel. But preventing violence is a matter on which all can agree. The disciplinary action against Lo is not a matter of finding a scapegoat and it must not be handled in a perfunctory way. We should take this opportunity to clarify and systematize punishments for inappropriate behavior. A severe interpretation of suspension should be adopted to establish disciplinary standards. In the future, when legislators behave inappropriately, their cases should be immediately handed over for disciplinary action according to clear provisions for punishment. Such behavior then won't spread unchecked.
Lee Ching-hsiung is a legislator of the Taiwan Independence Party.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS