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
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