The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) proposal to impose penalties for contempt of the legislature has attracted the most attention in the push for legislative reform. However, the current draft, even if it does not contravene the separation of powers, still fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty.
In the draft, the KMT proposed that an official who makes a false statement or falsifies information in a legislative inquiry hearing could be sentenced to imprisonment of up to three years, detention or a fine of up to NT$20,000.
The first problem is that no provision about legislative inquiry hearings is given in the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power (立法院職權行使法), which only deals with public hearings. Therefore, it is necessary to first establish the procedure for the hearings. Public hearings, which are only loosely regulated, are only to collect opinions from citizens and officials. Officials are not obliged to act on the resolution of a public hearing.
A legislative inquiry hearing, on the other hand, because its resolutions are legally binding, must have its target and scope of the application specified, and parties must be notified to attend. Before anyone makes a statement, they should be informed of their rights and the legal consequences of false statements, and the hearing should comply with the requirements of due process.
Therefore, if the rules for Legislative Yuan hearings are merely a slightly modified version of those for public hearing, the proposed contempt regulations would fall short of the required standards. People who make statements would bear an inappropriate burden of criminal responsibility.
Furthermore, the legal concepts of false statements and falsification of information are uncertain, which makes the scope of this offense unclear. If a legislator believes that an official has made a false statement, the legislator would have to report it to prosecutors anyway. Regardless of whether the official is prosecuted, the process would be criticized as politically motivated, dragging an objective and neutral prosecutor into political turmoil of constant disputes.
Another problem is the so-called falsification of information. Not only is its definition unclear, but compared to the punishment for forging or altering a public document under Article 211 of the Criminal Code, which carries a statutory prison term of between one and seven years, the penalty for falsification of information in the draft bill is less than three years. This is essentially preferential treatment, which makes no sense at all.
In addition, the draft bill proposes that an administrative official who conceals or makes a false statement during a questioning session of the Legislative Yuan could be sentenced to imprisonment of up to one year, detention or a fine of up to NT$100,000. If an official continues the counter-questioning after being halted by the chairperson they could be sentenced to up to six months in prison, detention or a fine of up to NT$15,000.
Although it could be justified if the case involves state secrets or a criminal investigation, it is difficult to specify this exception in the law.
Worse still, it is difficult to draw a clear line as to whether an official is answering or counter-questioning. If the politically elected legislative speaker is ultimately the sole judge of the matter, it would be confusing whether their decision is a fair and impartial judgement.
If legislation is enacted in haste and without regard to clarity, it would be another bitter example of the misguided belief that imposing punishment can solve all problems.
Wu Ching-chin is a professor and chair of Aletheia University’s Department of Law.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s