As the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) continued to promote their “contempt of the legislature” bills and made a farce of legislative procedure, the public took to the streets to protest, just as it did 10 years ago with the Sunflower movement.
The UK Parliament possesses high constitutional status and great authority, but it cannot abuse its powers.
First of all, a legislative reform bill is not a small deal. The proposal should be publicized in the first reading and drafted as a green or white paper for prior public consultation. The principle of the proposal should be clearly stated and submitted for legislative debate after the public reaches a consensus.
It is absurd that KMT legislators should be allowed to comply with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) wishes and create such chaos in the legislature.
In the UK, in certain circumstances, parliament has the right to summon specific people and ask them to provide evidence or submit documents before a session. Only select committees that have passed the resolution possess this authority, and the committee would give people summoned parliamentary immunity so that they can speak freely.
If parliament wants to prosecute someone, the approval of a prosecutor is necessary. It is unreasonable for Taiwanese legislators to be able to prosecute those who refuse to obey.
The legislature needs reform, but as former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator Lin Cho-shui (林濁水) has said, that reform should not introduce new crimes such as “contempt of legislature” and forget the basic responsibilities of lawmakers.
In addition, in the UK, the person elected to be the speaker of the House of Commons immediately withdraws from their party to show neutrality. Also, parties would not nominate candidates to compete for the seat of the speaker’s constituency.
In Taiwan, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) has his own political stance and remains in the KMT, and this lacks neutrality. For anyone familiar with the Westminster system, it is preposterous that Han, in his current status, could become legislative speaker.
With the nonsensical proposals and the chaos, the legislature has lost its credibility in the eyes of the public. The KMT and the TPP should withdraw the proposals, or the legislature might face dissolution and realignment.
In many Western nations, if lawmakers behave unreasonably and uncontrollably, parliament would be dissolved and re-elected. Also, a constitutional reform committee would be established to let parties and the public discuss how to improve the parliament.
Although discontentment from the public has yet to reach this level, whether the legislature would soon face dissolution is hard to tell.
Martin Oei is a Hong Kong-born British political commentator based in Germany and a member of the UK’s Conservative Party.
Translated by Chien Yan-ru
President Jimmy Carter, who turned 100 years old this month, has not been highly thought of in Taiwan since his 1978 decision to derecognize Taipei as the seat of the “Republic of China.” But with a half-century’s hindsight, President Carter’s derecognition of the ROC, viewed together with his straightforward diplomacy to preserve the full substance of America’s relations with Taiwan, can now be seen in a far more positive light, especially when compared to his predecessors, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. In considering Carter’s decisions to recognize the People’s Republic of China as the “sole legal government of China” and break
Public health is one of Taiwan’s greatest strengths. Its National Health Insurance was already one of the best single-payer systems in the world, ensuring that everyone has coverage while staying nimble in the face of financial challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic was a chance for the world to see Taiwan’s full public health apparatus at work. Officials caught wind of a strange virus circulating in China and jumped to screen and then stem the flow of travelers before the word “coronavirus” even made headlines. It was one of the only countries in the world to escape widespread transmission before vaccines were distributed,
Four days after Double Ten National Day, China announced a new round of military exercises around Taiwan titled “Joint Sword-2024B.” As the name implies, Monday’s exercises are a follow-up to its “Joint Sword-2024A” exercises in May, which were ostensibly a response to the content of President William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration speech, but, as the title suggests, were intended to routinize large-scale military exercises around Taiwan. International observers in general viewed Lai’s National Day speech as restrained and measured. “Lai’s speech demonstrated restraint, refraining from breaking new ground, repeating well-known positions,” Council on Foreign Relations research fellow David Sacks said. These exercises
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce on Oct. 12 announced that it would consider adopting further measures in response to Taiwan’s trade barriers on certain goods from China, based on the findings of an investigation it launched late last year. The measures could include tariffs or other forms of economic pressure. The announcement is yet another political move by Beijing that is more declarative than substantive. The timing was not coincidental, as it came shortly after President William Lai (賴清德) delivered his first Double Ten National Day speech after taking office on May 20, which was moderate on the cross-strait relationship,