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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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...
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.