The Legislative Yuan on Tuesday last week passed a set of controversial bills proposed by opposition lawmakers expanding the legislature’s power of investigation and introducing penalties for “contempt of the legislature.”
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have pushed for the passage of the amendments to the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Powers (立法院職權行使法) and the Criminal Code, in the name of “legislative reform” to make the government more transparent and accountable. The bills grant the legislature investigative powers, allowing it to hold hearings and demand that government agencies, the military, judicial officials, organizations and individuals provide information or documents or face fines. They would also criminalize “contempt of the legislature” by civil servants who make false statements during a hearing or questioning in the Legislative Yuan.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) said the bills are “unconstitutional” and an abusive overreach of legislative power, which might increase the risk of sensitive information leaks, infringe on the courts’ jurisdiction and harm individuals’ privacy rights.
During the legislative process, the KMT and TPP refused to discuss the DPP’s proposed bills and occupied the legislative speaker’s podium to block the DPP from raising motions or boycotting by a show of hands for the second and third readings.
Tens of thousands of people surrounded the Legislative Yuan in the past two weeks to protest the rushed passing of the bills, which include vague terminology, while the process lacked definition, transparency, cross-party negotiations and measures to protect the rights of those affected.
Many protesters also expressed concern that expanded legislative power would erode the Constitution, and benefit Beijing by hindering the government’s execution of policies and undermining President William Lai’s (賴清德) presidency.
The bills would not immediately become law, as the Executive Yuan can return them to the Legislative Yuan for reassessment, but if more than half of the original lawmakers uphold the original bill, the Cabinet would have to pass it to Lai to be signed. The president does not have veto powers, so he can only ask the Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of the bills after they have been signed into law.
The KMT called the bills a “great victory,” and KMT caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) instantly showed his true colors by making several extravagant claims in the past week, with little regard for — and even showing contempt for — the Constitution, the judicial system, KMT’s party charter and their “ally” the TPP.
Fu and TPP caucus whip Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) pledged that they would “surely abolish the Control Yuan,” but the separation of the five government branches is an integral part of the Constitution.
The preface of the KMT Charter states that the party follows the principles of the separation of the five government branches. KMT leaders have also constantly said that they are determined to protect the Constitution, so Fu’s call to abolish the Control Yuan and the unbalanced expansion of legislative power from the passed bills highlight the discordance in the KMT and its unconstitutional power grab under the pretense of “reform.”
He further pledged to establish an “opposition parties’ special investigation division,” which has been rejected by TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲).
Ko said the TPP advocates for the division of three powers: the Legislative Yuan, Executive Yuan and Judicial Yuan.
The public should continue to keep their eyes on the Legislative Yuan, especially on Fu and the KMT caucus, as their “victory” has seemingly encouraged and intensified their undisguised grab for power and could further harm the nation’s democracy.
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS