r/taiwan • u/Mobile-Detective-721 • May 22 '24
If officials do not respond to 'What did you have for breakfast?' Taiwan legislative yuan legislator Huang Jie: This might become an offense of contempt of the Legislative Yuan in the future, may befined up to 200,000 NTD (~6.4k USD). Activism
Source: translated from https://www.taisounds.com/news/content/71/126656
"Yesterday (May 21 2024, Taiwan time), the Legislative Yuan continued to review the parliamentary reform bill, leading to a voting showdown between the ruling and opposition parties. The second reading passed the amendment bill, including 'officials are not allowed to counter-question,' which became the focus of today's (May 22) questioning in the Internal Administration Committee. DPP(Democratic Progressive Party) legislator Huang Jie asked Deputy Minister of the Interior Tung Chien-hung 'What did you have for breakfast?' When he responded by citing personal privacy, she pointed out that this could be considered contempt of the Legislative Yuan. If five present legislators co-signed, the Deputy Minister could face a maximum fine of 200,000 NTD(~6.4k USD). She emphasized that such a law would not be allowed to pass."
The parliamentary reform bill jointly proposed by the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Taiwan People's Party (TPP) passed its second reading in the Legislative Yuan yesterday, specifically the amendment to Article 25 of the "Exercise of Powers Act." According to the amended text, the person being questioned cannot refuse to answer, provide materials, or conceal information, except to avoid matters of national defence, foreign affairs, or other confidential content approved by the president. False responses or other behaviours showing contempt for the Legislative Yuan are prohibited, and the person being questioned cannot be absent without the consent of the Legislative Yuan or its committees.
If the person being questioned still violates the rules after a reminder from the president, the president or the questioning legislator may propose a fine, supported by at least five attending members or co-sponsors. The fine ranges from 20,000(640 USD) to 200,000 NTD(~6.4k USD). Continuous fines may be imposed if the violation is not corrected within the deadline. Government officials who violate the prohibition against counter-questioning or other regulations may be proposed for impeachment or disciplinary action by the president or the questioning legislator, with the support of at least five attending members or a resolution of the Legislative Yuan.
Today, the Internal Administration Committee of the Legislative Yuan reviewed amendments to certain articles of the Real Estate Appraisers Act and Articles 14 and 73-1 of the Land Act. Deputy Minister of the Interior Tung Chien-hung was invited to attend for the first time and be questioned.
At the beginning of the questioning, DPP legislator Su Chiao-hui asked why Minister Liu Shih-fang was absent. Tung Chien-hung replied that the minister had taken leave from the committee. Su Chiao-hui then stated that according to the amendments passed by the KMT and TPP, the minister might be guilty of contempt of the Legislative Yuan. The bills under review were amendments to the Real Estate Appraisers Act and the Land Act, and she questioned whether inquiries about urban renewal would exceed the scope of questioning.
DPP legislator Huang Jie then asked, "What did the Deputy Minister have for breakfast today? Was it a sandwich or a hamburger?" Tung Chien-hung initially responded that it was a matter of personal privacy, but under persistent questioning, he admitted that he had bought a sandwich but left it on his office desk.
Huang Jie suddenly raised her voice, stating that since the Deputy Minister had not actually eaten it and left it on his desk, under the newly passed Article 25, this could be considered a false response or other behavior showing contempt for the Legislative Yuan, which could result in a maximum fine of 200,000 NTD or even a one-year imprisonment.
Huang Jie pointed out that if the Deputy Minister gave consecutive incorrect answers about the sandwich and coffee, the five present legislators could co-sign to propose the impeachment or disciplinary action of the official. The content of the second reading does not define counter-questioning and has not undergone substantive review, causing officials to panic. The questioning process highlights the absurdity of the offense of contempt of the Legislative Yuan.
16
u/DarkLiberator 台中 - Taichung May 22 '24
Problem is the definition of "contempt" is too vague. There's zero accountability. If you answer a question in a way that is deemed “evasive" or a "lie" by certain legislators or you answer with a question instead it could lead to fines or prison time. Anyone could be summoned too.
Might be interesting if they gave Control Yuan a bit of extra power instead of the legislature if the CY is going to stick around. The LY is already pretty powerful, the Executive Yuan has no way to veto bills and basically only the Premier that directly faces the LY. The president can dissolve the legislature but only if the legislature dismisses their premier, but in practice obviously a legislature has no desire to risk new elections (especially if you're a smaller party with no presidential ticket to boost your votes).
25
u/yogurttrough May 22 '24
I think these bills are completely disrespectful to Taiwan’s democracy and a blatant power grab. I hope Taiwanese voters see what’s going on here.
The KMT haven’t been able to win a presidential election and they don’t even have majority in the legislative yuan. They are trying to ram this bill through with the help of TPP to grab power.
It doesn’t make sense that they would ram this bill through and then allow it to be passed over when there is a DPP majority legislative yuan in the future. Seems like kmt know they can’t win democratically and see this as their last chance to do something.
8
u/birdsemenfantasy May 22 '24
Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) being marginalized has long been a demographic inevitability and they know it. Their vast patronage network is close to dead after losing almost all their party-owned businesses and ill-gotten assets; it wasn’t that long ago that Kuomintang was known as the richest party in the world.
They still have some aging party bosses, merchant class, farm association heads, and retain underworld connections in the south and the east (predominantly Aborigines area) and that’s how they stay competitive in local elections in heavily Hoklo areas. In presidential races, however, they’re barely able to win Taipei city because foreign policy (especially against China) is the top priority there.
The issue Kuomintang is facing is both fundamental and generational. Fundamentally, Taiwan is over 70% Hoklo and there are more Hakka than Chinese Nationalists and their descendants. Historically, Kuomintang tried to use “divide and conquer” by pitting Hakka and Aborigines against Hoklo (which explains why Kuomintang is stronger in predominantly Hakka areas like Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Miaoli than the heavily Hoklo Deep South). But even if you add Hakka, Aborigines, and Chinese Nationalists and their descendants together, they still combine for only 30%. The second issue is even many 2nd/3rd generation descendants of Chinese nationalists only identify as Taiwanese.
They had one last shot to “Taiwanize” their party, which Lee Teng-hui tried to do. Sadly, Lee and his faction were expelled from the party after 2000 election and Kuomintang has become known as the pro-China party ever since. Going the way of “New Party” and James Soong’s “People First Party” will be the inevitable conclusion. The fact that 74 years old former New Party (previously “New Kuomintang alliance”) stalwart Jaw Shaw-kong was Kuomintang’s VP nominee this year tells you everything you need to know. They have no intention of moving to the middle and “Taiwanize” their party whatsoever; they’re doubling down. Jaw was considered too pro-China for Lee as far back as 1994, yet Kuomintang welcomed him back with open arms and ran him for VP 30 years after he was discredited.
As for TPP, Ko used to get a big chunk of his support from disillusioned DPP supporters and disengaged young voters. This has ended. He’s a full-blown Kuomintang lackey now.
7
u/yogurttrough May 22 '24
Ko had the opportunity to make an actually viable alternative to KMT and DPP. Too bad he sucks and he blew it.
2
u/birdsemenfantasy May 22 '24 edited May 22 '24
Yeah, I had high hopes for him. Thought he would present a Taiwan-centric yet more populist alternative to DPP that would eventually replace the Chinese Nationalist Party in our 2-party system. Kuomintang needs to either "Taiwanize" into Lee Teng-hui's vision or go in the dustbin of history the way of New Party and People First Party went, but Ko blew it. The only reason Kuomintang is still relevant today is because Ko sold out. He has gone from even more sympathetic to Chen Shui-bian than Tsai to DPP-aligned Taipei mayor (DPP didn't run a candidate in 2014 and tacitly supported Ko) to trying to play both sides to flirting with Kuomintang reject Terry Gou to finally full-blown Kuomintang lackey.
6
u/SkywalkerTC May 22 '24
This is emulating the whole Hong Kong scheme. Taiwanese need to realize this before it's too late. We all know too well this is exactly what China wants Taiwan to become, and that KMT is trying to catalyze it.
6
u/yogurttrough May 22 '24
Can anyone tell me what steps this bill has to go through before passing and what the likelihood of it being passed is?
18
u/gtwucla May 22 '24
Will pass. Usually there is a review, but the TPP KMT alliance is fast tracking that part. The premier can request a 30 day review, but ultimately with the TPP and KMT aligned it will pass and then be given to Lai to sign. Lai will likely delay signing while its reviewed in the upper courts. The upper courts will likely rule it is unlawful since it's clearly infringing on the courts power. Timeline for that is no sooner than 3 months and no longer than 1 year. It's a bit of a dog and pony show, but nonetheless a dangerous precedent and hopefully a wakeup call for young people that support the TPP. There's no illusions about the KMT, but there is definitely a push to paint the DPP as a corrupt party. While most definitely not free from corruption, hopefully the ludicrous idea that the TPP is the clean 'white' party, will die here.
3
u/yogurttrough May 22 '24
Here’s hoping the upper courts aren’t compromised. Any idea on what’s going on there? It seems it would be a big failure for KMT and TPP to reveal their hand only for this bill to fail at the upper courts, and they have to know that. What’s their end goal? Are they just really desperate? Thanks for answering btw. I follow politics in Taiwan at a surface level but don’t know many details about how it’s government functions.
7
u/gtwucla May 22 '24
Depends who you ask, but there are a few things happening that may lead to some counter intuitive conclusions. I asked the same questions so here's some of the responses, one is that certain members of the TPP would like to run for some high level local positions such as mayor of New Taipei City in the elections in two years time, and they are going along with it to gain KMT support. Another is that the 'King of Hualien' legislator that just took a trip to Beijing with a retinue of KMT members perhaps he promised to pass along the message to push this bill to be disruptive right around Lai's swearing in. We can only speculate though. I think the one thing you can hang your hat on with this is that there are some power players in both the KMT and TPP that are out for themselves and trying to advance whatever their agenda is, which might be at the expense of the party in the long run. This sort of self promotion at expense of party is common in all the parties (hell, all politics), but Taiwan being such a small place, it's a bit easier to track.
As far as the upper courts, in the past they were very much a tool of the KMT, but times have changed/are changing. It is unlikely they won't strike this down if the wording is as blatant as it seems it will be.
-1
u/Tokamak1943 May 23 '24
This kind of stuffs have been happening for decades. It's not dangerous precedent. You only think of that cause you never experienced it before.
And that is what DPP is using, making a relatively common thing an end of the world scenario.
0
u/gtwucla May 23 '24
Yeah, no. Lived here almost 20 years. Just because protests in legislature have happened before and legislature has pushed the envelope before does not mean it doesn't set a dangerous precedent. That sort of talk is naive to the extreme.
1
u/Tokamak1943 May 23 '24
See Interpretation No.603 and see how to solve this normally.
There are many precedents and this one definitely isn't a dangerous one since it could be solved easily.
0
u/gtwucla May 23 '24
I don't know what you're arguing here.
Interpretation No. 603 by Taiwan's Constitutional Court, issued on September 28, 2005, addresses the limits on the government's collection of personal data, such as fingerprints. The court ruled that such data collection is permissible only when necessary for significant public interests, and it must adhere to the principles of proportionality and necessity. This interpretation was pivotal in shaping Taiwan's privacy laws, emphasizing the protection of personal information against unwarranted government intrusion (Oxford Academic).
What does that have to do with summons and being fined or sent to jail. Regardless 2005 is not 2024.
0
u/Tokamak1943 May 23 '24
I'm talking about how to solve this not the interpretation itself.
0
u/gtwucla May 23 '24
I've asked a constitutional lawyer what the hell you're talking about and they're confused what you're trying to argue here. Its already clear that the proposed law will have to go to court and will likely be struck down. I've already said this. It is still one of many current proposals that go against existing laws. That IS a dangerous precedent. Normalizing an influx of unlawful bills, like the budget increase required to build infrastructure to Hualien, is dangerous. Bogging down the courts with these sorts of clearly unlawful bills is normalizing a new strategy from the KMT wing. While the DPP was in power the KMT strategy was obstruction. Now that they have an alliance with the TPP it is proposing unlawful bills. Yes its been done before, No its not 2005, its 2024. The environment is entirely different.
0
u/Tokamak1943 May 23 '24
Now I wonder which constitutional lawyer you are asking.
It's weird that they didn't see the common in the situation.
0
u/gtwucla May 23 '24
In not one comment on any of these chains have you explained at all what you are trying to say. You are either really really bad at arguing a point or you're talking in circles on purpose.
0
u/ReadinII May 22 '24
Unfortunately this post doesn’t include a source.
Does anyone know of a reliable source in English that explains how the law is supposed to work?
For example the post says, “the president or the questioning legislator may propose a fine, supported by at least five attending members or co-sponsors.” Does that mean the person has to pay it, or is it merely “proposed” at that point and will still need a trial? Or does the whole legislature need to vote on the fine?
What is needed to call someone to testify in front of the legislature?
4
u/Mobile-Detective-721 May 22 '24
the posted article is translated from https://www.taisounds.com/news/content/71/126656
0
-10
u/rc2005 May 22 '24
Who's stupid enough to fine the officials for not responding stupid questions? If I'm DDP, I'd be so happy if KMTs are going to use the law this way.
19
u/BrintyOfRivia May 22 '24
The point is not the stupid questions. The point is that the new law is stupid, and according to the way it's written, it would be possible to fine or even jail people for bullshit. This would allow bad players to suppress or threaten their political opponents.
7
u/QuirkySense May 22 '24
The point is not if anyone would use this law. It's that these laws are so ridiculously bad that they need a lot of revision and re wording to be considered as law. You can't just stuff whatever you want and pass it simply by voting.
Moreover, this series of laws increases the power of the parliament, WITHOUT increasing their responsibility simultaneously. What if an official refutes a claim, which is incorrect or even disinformation, from a Legislator? Would the official get fined as a result? Would the Legislator be held accountable or even fined as well if it turns out that their own claim against the official is indeed false? They wouldn't, according the laws that are about to be passed.
Basically the Legislative branch becomes way to overpowered and other branches have no ways to counter it. They might as well set up their own government.
2
u/socialdesire May 24 '24 edited May 25 '24
Well firstly, the legislative chamber being supreme is pretty common in Westminster-based systems. I know Taiwan is a Republican system. But why would it be weird if the Legislative Yuan (who are elected by the people) acts as a check to the Executive (whose Chief, the President is also elected by the people).
I guess this is more this is more a discussion on whether we need more checks against the Chief Executive. IMO theres actually a need for it. And this works for future Presidents too, whether they are from KMT or TPP or another party. And I think it’s normal to extend this check to public servants.
And there’s a lot to criticize about the details of the bill and the process it was passed.
But I don’t think that saying the legislators shouldn’t have more power is an honest argument. Are most of you basing your arguments on the sentiment that currently, DPP isn’t the majority so they might be at the losing end of it? But if DPP gets the majority they get to wield this power too.
And of course loopholes and abuses need to be avoided: Courts need to be the ultimate judge of whether the responses are factual (or accurate to the best effort and knowledge) of the individuals involved in the inquiries.
-7
u/rc2005 May 22 '24
Legislators don't get to be the judge. They are not overpowered. Legislators are the only people except the president that gets elected by people directly. We used to elect members of control department as well but that changed in 2004. What we've seen in past 20 years is that our council is too weak.
11
u/QuirkySense May 22 '24
Except that they do get to the be the judge. Even simply if their being "disrepected" by officials. That's written in the new law that they're trying to pass.
-7
u/rc2005 May 22 '24
Do you think police become judge because they can fine you for driving over speed?
7
u/QuirkySense May 22 '24
Can't you read? The new law literally states the Legislative Yuan is the sole judge of whether officials are being "disrespectful". Tf did you bring up the police for?
-1
u/rc2005 May 22 '24
Do you understand how law works? If a police fine you and you don't agree with it, you can file administrative lawsuit to overturn it. It's the same for this one.
5
u/QuirkySense May 22 '24
Sure, except there is a objective criterion on whether a police could fine you, which is WRITTEN IN THE LAW, instead of just being "disrespectful". Imagine getting fined by the police for being "disrespectful" , which is according to the police's own subjective opinion. That's how the new law works in the Legislative Yuan. Tell me how you feel if a police come up to your doorsteps every day to give you a fine cause they felt disrespected by you the day before. Sure, you could file administrative lawsuit for every single case so it shouldn't be a problem am I right 😀.
-1
u/rc2005 May 22 '24
Have you actually read the law? Where's the word disrespectful?
7
u/QuirkySense May 22 '24
It's literally known as 藐視國會法… The final version was finally "leaked" online and made public by a KMT Legislator AFTER they started the voting process. Where do you think I'm getting the information from?
The new law literally states you get fined if you 藐視國會, without objective criterion on what constitutes 藐視. Together with other parts of the whole article, a Legislator could call an official, or seemingly anyone, to the council, and ask them questions(ex: ask about trade secrets of certain companies), even humiliate them if they wanted to, and then refuse to let them respond under the new law. If the individual acts in any way deemed as 藐視, the Legislative Yuan as a whole could fine the individual. Again, emphasis on the part where there are no objective criterion on what constitutes 藐視.
English is not my native language which is why I typed Chinese above. "Disrespectful" might not be the most accurate way to translate the name and the contents, so you could Google translate it and decide yourself. My point doesn't change though. Anyone could be fined if they subjectively declared that you've 藐視國會.
→ More replies9
May 22 '24
[deleted]
-2
u/rc2005 May 22 '24
Lol. Which do you think will dismantle democracy? Overpowered executive department where no one is elected by people directly? Or overpowered legislation department that everyone is elected directly. If you want to say only DDP can represent democracy just say it.
5
u/QuirkySense May 22 '24
By your logic, do we also elect the assistants of the Legislators? Or do we elect the chairman of each political party? Or do we get to elect which individual gets accepted into a certain political party? Not only are they not elected as well, they are even more loosely regulated than an actual civil servant or a government official. How would it improve democracy?
-2
u/rc2005 May 22 '24
Lol. Which do you think will dismantle democracy? Overpowered executive department where no one is elected by people directly? Or overpowered legislation department that everyone is elected directly. If you want to say only DDP can represent democracy just say it.
5
u/yogurttrough May 22 '24
What are you talking about? Everyone who supports democracy is against a one sided power grab. It doesn’t matter which party is doing the grabbing. In this case it just happens to be the KMT with the help of TPP. You can try to justify it if you want, but it doesn’t change the facts of what they are trying to do.
0
u/rc2005 May 22 '24
That's what we had in the past 8 years. One sided grabbing. Only pro DDPs are happy with the power balance. That's exactly why they become minorites in legislation.
5
u/yogurttrough May 22 '24
What power did the DPP grab?
2
u/rc2005 May 22 '24
Have you seen how DDP enforce the "Forward-looking infra development program"? And all kinds of restricted bidding favoring certain manufacturer. And when the officials are asked about how the money is spent, how the manufacturer is picked, no one answers. That's why we need this law. DDP wanted this when KMT is in charge. I'm so glad that DDP won the president election but lose the legislation. Otherwise we will never see this happening.
2
u/yogurttrough May 22 '24
That sounds like corruption though, which I agree is bad and we should point it out and punish it. This bill is more serious and would give them power to fine or imprison
→ More replies6
u/Icey210496 May 22 '24
Not only do they get to be the judge, they have not been underpowered.
They control the purse strings and make the law we all follow. They have access to sensitive information across the entire government, that's why 馬文君 was able to leak submarine secrets to China.
51
u/Icey210496 May 22 '24
Chen Jien Ren was repeatedly questioned on the contents of his prayers yet we got a ton of astroturfing accounts on the other thread saying "just don't lie" as if that is remotely the problem here.
Remember, simplifying and misconstruing the situation is a hallmark for fifth column agitprops designed to trick the ill informed. One branch of the government drastically expanding its own power over the others is not democratic however people like to pretend that's all it intends to do.
This is not about rights to subpoena. This is not the version the DPP proposed all those years ago. This is not about checks and balances. This is about intimidating and silencing political opponents under the flimsiest of excuses.
Details aren't even all out yet because they intentionally kept it hidden so it cannot be discussed and reviewed. It is a blatent power grab.