Power Swallowed the DPP at one Gulp
By Hsia Jen
The Storm Media, June 7, 2024
The Executive Yuan has decided to request a reconsideration of the Legislative Yuan’s third reading passage of the “Law Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power” and the “Criminal Code” amendments related to legislative reform. The Executive Yuan emphasizes that the reconsideration is not a major threat or a constitutional crisis, but rather a “normal” process and should be viewed as “constructive constitutional interaction.” It is not intended to provoke conflict, as the Executive Yuan is calm, knowing that it is not the Executive Yuan’s ministers under fire, but the ruling and opposition legislators.
According to the Additional Articles of the Constitution, if more than half of the legislators uphold the original bill, the reconsideration proposal will not pass. Given the current composition of the Legislative Yuan, it is almost certain that the reconsideration proposal will be rejected. The only comfort for Premier Cho Jung-tai is that the Additional Articles have abolished the requirement for the premier to resign if the reconsideration fails. Whether or not there is conflict, this will be a futile dispute, and officials will act according to their own judgment. Meanwhile, Legislator Ker Chien-ming, whip of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus of the Legislative Yuan, announced that if the reconsideration does not pass, the caucus will seek a constitutional interpretation. DPP Secretary-General Lin Yu-chang has stated that they will mobilize “street lectures” for the reconsideration proposal, extending the parliamentary reform debate from the Legislative Yuan to the streets. The DPP’s strategy seems well-calculated, making things difficult not for the opposition but for the Cho cabinet.
The Executive Yuan has provided seven reasons for the reconsideration, each worth exploring:
1. Lack of Discussion Violates Democratic Principles: The parliamentary reform bill went through three public hearings, two committee reviews, and multiple party negotiations. Even though there were intense physical confrontations during the second and third readings, the DPP legislators spoke more often and for longer periods than the opposition legislators, and some of the three reading provisions were even from the DPP versions. The DPP never intended to have a thorough discussion to make the parliamentary reform bill more comprehensive; instead, they sought to delay proceedings and obstruct the legislation. The DPP aimed to suppress the parliamentary majority, which is not a democratic principle but an overbearing one.
2. Confusion Between Dual Executive System and Presidential Inquiries Being Unconstitutional: Whether the president should go to the Legislative Yuan for a national report and answer questions immediately is debatable. However, the time and number of questions allocated to legislators based on party proportionality is different from the unlimited questioning of the premier by legislators. They are not comparable. Whether it is unconstitutional or not is certainly not for the Executive Yuan to decide.
3. Unrestricted Investigation of Citizens and Overly Broad Scope of Hearings: In fact, current legislative proceedings, including committee reports or public hearings, can invite non-government officials to attend within the scope of legislative powers. The amendment does not change this standard. Legislators still exercise their right to investigate and review based on the need to supervise and check the Executive Yuan, and it is not an all-encompassing right. The DPP’s claim that “even an aunt from the street can be investigated” and “TSMC can be investigated” is a deliberate misrepresentation. Either they have brainwashed themselves into believing it, or they are overly worried about their allies related to the government being investigated. It is worth noting that the current law already states that public hearings can invite relevant individuals to attend, and invited individuals must attend unless they have a legitimate reason otherwise.
4. Ignoring Due Legal Process and Violating Procedural Justice: Amending the law follows the legal process, so there is no violation of procedural justice. Even if there are parts of the relevant amendments that involve criminal liability, they must be approved by the Legislative Yuan and referred to the judicial authorities for judgment. The latter is contingent upon whether the DPP agrees, and the cooperation of the blue and white parties to determine if an official has shown contempt for the Legislative Yuan is not arbitrary. Even if they agree, the judiciary may not support it.
5. Unlimited Review of Personnel Approval Rights Leading to Government Vacancies: The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) sharply rebukes this as “spreading rumors” because the amendment clearly states a “one-month review period” for personnel approval rights. Misinterpreting “one month” as “unlimited” reflects poorly on the Executive Yuan officials who claim to have compared the legal texts overnight. Were they experiencing reading difficulties late at night? The Legislative Yuan's personnel approval rights, including for the Judicial, Examination, and Control Yuan as well as independent agencies like the National Communications Council, have a one-month review period that is reasonable. The one-month review does not imply continuous review but involves scheduling public hearings, committee sessions, and then voting in the plenary session, typically completing within about a month. There is no obstruction in this process.
6. Undefined Contempt for Congress, Arbitrarily Expanding Legislative Powers: The crime of contempt of Parliament is not uncommon in democracies. The DPP’s cognitive warfare against itself greatly exaggerates the situations that could be deemed contempt of parliament. The conflict between officials and legislators does not automatically constitute “contempt of Parliament” as the DPP imagines, leading to easy convictions. For example, when Minister of Labor Ho Pei-shan, who served as deputy secretary-general of the Executive Yuan at the time, had a verbal altercation with DPP Legislator Lin Shu-fen, who angrily said, “You’re showing contempt for the Legislative Yuan!” Even if contempt of parliament is legislated, Legislator Lin would not likely demand that the Legislative Yuan submit then Deputy-Secretary Ho for prosecution. As mentioned, it would be much harder for opposition legislators to unite against a specific official and deem them in contempt of Parliament than the DPP anticipates. While it is possible for legislators to act unreasonably, any judgment on such cases should be based on actual incidents rather than preemptively deeming the law unfeasible. Existing laws already stipulate that officials must answer legislative questions unless the matter is confidential.
7. Officials Suspected of False Statements Can Be Criminally Charged: As mentioned earlier, whether an official has made a false statement must be supported by facts, not mere “suspicion” leading to criminal charges. Legislators do not impose criminal penalties on officials directly; instead, they must refer the matter to judicial authorities for judgment. Additionally, there is a “perjury” law in the judiciary that prohibits false testimony in court. Why should Parliament allow officials to fabricate statements?
Legislative reform has taken three decades to reach this present point, and whether the legislation is practically feasible requires implementation and experience. The Executive Yuan's reconsideration has obstructed progress before it has even begun. Regrettably, the obstacle was set by the DPP, despite the fact that almost every aspect of parliamentary reform was once a DPP initiative. Indeed, power is a formidable beast that swallows politicians' "original intentions" in one gulp. The DPP is no exception, and neither is President Lai Ching-te.