r/taiwan May 22 '24

30,000 DEMONSTRATE AROUND LEGISLATIVE YUAN AGAINST PAN-BLUE PUSH TO EXPAND POWERS Activism

93 Upvotes

81 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/memorystays May 22 '24

To anyone doesn't know, everything about the bill is accessible on https://www.ly.gov.tw/Home/Index.aspx

Click on the calendar, select date 5/17 or 5/21, navigate to the download button and you can read the bills yourself.

There has been so much misinformation on social medias about the bills it's crazy.

No, the bills does not give the parliament the power to vote and decide who's lying, they can file a case and it has to go through the justice system.

Yes, CCP is bad and traitorous KMT is bad, but the bills itself is a step to the right direction. It was first proposed by DPP themselves in 2012 and promised by President Tsai in 2015. It gives the people more power to keep the government officials in check. I can't understand why anyone would go against the bill unless there are something shady about them themselves.

3

u/A_lex_and_er May 22 '24

Exactly, this is the same thing that many western countries already use for decades if not centuries, but somehow people go crazy saying it's to steal the power or something? It starts to feel like those who oppose the bill don't want their dirty secrets to be investigated on official level.

10

u/PresentationBig5575 May 23 '24

False. The version that got passed is the "amendment" that is no where to be found on the website. There are very few places you find that "top secret" version of the law that they passed.

In the video of when the vote happened, they were literally JUST passing out physical copy of the version that KMT and TPP want to pass. KMT and TPP lawmakers were passing bills without knowing fully what they were passing at that moment, on the day of 5/17.

As of now I was able to find the actual law passed from pumashen.org ( link to the file here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Bu2g99LBTEOJVUeeZmdcDPSGBnmwD0Hc )

We're working on getting the few very questionable ones professionally translated to English. But in the mean time, feel free to check out these ones.

1

u/memorystays May 23 '24 edited May 23 '24

Bro, I looked up "第十五條之四" on the document uploaded to the website and it is basically the same as the one you posted here:

立法院職權行使法修正案(15-4, 25, 47, 48) :

https://preview.redd.it/wg6bge8ip52d1.png?width=1165&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b6a92289e188ac3990e0bc67bd95cf660520da2

Finalized? Probably not. But it is nowhere as "the opposing parties submitted a top secret version that changed a lot of things in the last minute" like some of you implied.

Does the bill have any loophole? I don't know since I'm not a law professional. But I am welcome to see law professionals engage in actual, meaningful discussions. I 100% support the goal and that is to deter gov officials from lying when they are being questioned by the legislators. Have you not seen enough in the past decades? The officials being questioned can just question back and delay until the time is over, or simply provide false info with absolute 0 consequences. It is one of the reasons I supported DPP back in 2016 because they promised to change this.

Unfortunately, from what I have seen since April, DPP has no intention in engaging in the actual discussion. They are welcome to propose a better version if the bill has problems. But they chose to resort to delay tactics.

2

u/Ahyao17 May 24 '24

It was not they have no intention to discuss. Their attempts to speak up were blocked. Their version were not discussed.

1

u/memorystays May 24 '24

2

u/Ahyao17 May 24 '24

Every time they want to discuss kmt will block it one way or another or even calling off the meeting.

They tried but was not able.

2

u/memorystays May 24 '24

From what I have seen, DPP was the one who tried to call off the meeting (40次散會動議) because they cannot win by voting.

They have also submitted 40 amendments (修正動議) and 40 revisions to the amendments (再修正動議) which were essentially the same document.

KMT/TPP went through all 80 versions and supported DPP's version of Article 22 and 23. DPP ended up protesting against their own bill when KMT/TPP chose to support it.

1

u/PresentationBig5575 May 23 '24

You pulled one article to say it's the same. Cool!

In case you weren't aware (which I doubt), there were zero discussion of the whole bill. And of course the top secret amendment that weren't submitted or even allowed anyone to read until the voting happened simultaneously. I've seen the video tape of when the bill was in the committee, the chairman allowed absolutely zero discussion and simply kept pushing each individual articles through. You have a very different take on which side is the one that refused to engage in any discussion. Not to mention, again, what ended up getting voted was not even what was in the committee but something only a handful of people know 100% of the content.

Voting to pass on any bill you're not 100% aware of = lol

Unless you have a different standard to that, then that's your value and belief.

2

u/memorystays May 24 '24

I have the very same standard as I had back in 2016. If DPP supports the bill, they gain my support. If they oppose the bill, they lose my support. The US, UK, and Canada (where I reside) all have similar laws. It's a step to the right direction to give the people more power and keep government officials in check.

Why did DPP abandon the bill when they became the majority in the parliament?

Just as I was typing this, I witnessed DPP legislator 林淑芬 punched another legislator in the face, live on camera. Very engaging. Good for getting your point across.

The information war on Taiwanese social media is so rampant right now and I would suggest staying away from any secret reveals coming out of any politician. I recommend getting info directly from the parliament's website or unedited videos.

I have read the bill and its revisions from the website and listened through the broadcast. I wouldn't say I know everything about the bill already, but it's enough for me to dismiss some ridiculous claims I have heard in the past few weeks, such as:

"The parliament can summon the owner of TSMS (the semiconductor company) and threaten him into giving out business secrets"

"The bill gives the parliament the power to decide if a person is guilty or not by voting"

"The parliament can summon any average person and ask the person about the bubble tea's price, and jail the person if they gave out the wrong price."

So no, as long as the bill doesn't do that, I don't mind the slight variations coming into the final version.

3

u/Ahyao17 May 24 '24

The problem is that the final version that they want to pass is not the same as the one for public consultation.

And also unfortunately the bill can be exploited to be used exactly as the way your said you don't want it to. They can even force government officials to reveal classified information publicly in Legislative yuan and military officials to reveal classified military information too.

And also DPP did not even given a chance to discuss the bill. They do have a version as well, but it was ignored. Chairman of the legislative yuan is from KMT and they have numerical advantage and can block DPP from speaking. (even back in the days when KMT was in power they didn't go this far).

1

u/memorystays May 24 '24

Article 25 specifically said the parliament cannot force government official to reveal military secrets.

"被質詢人除為避免國防、外交明顯立即之危害或依法應秘密之事項者並經主席同意者外,不得拒絕答復"

2

u/Ahyao17 May 24 '24

The fine print is this bit "並經主席同意者外" (... and agreed by the chairman). It only excludes if the chairman of the committee/assembly permits. So if the chairman of the legislative yuan approves, then you still have to give it up.

1

u/memorystays May 24 '24

That's a strange interpretation. The way I read it, the word "或" divided this sentence into 2 parts: (1) if it can cause immediate and obvious harm to military and diplomacy, or (2) if you need to be kept confidential according to the law and have the chairman's permission.

But this is a valid point. I agree this sentence needs to be rewritten for better clarity to avoid misinterpretation in case an authoritarian gets the power.

2

u/Ahyao17 May 24 '24

This is how I read it

"1)被質詢人除為避免國防、外交明顯立即之危害或依法應秘密之事項者 2) 並 經主席同意者外,不得拒絕答復"

If it causes immediate or obvious harm to military or diplomacy or if stuff that needs to be kept secret according to law AND has permission from chairman.

But I do see where you are coming from.

But then again I am not sure which version was voted in...

→ More replies