From Inaction Toward Abuse: The Justified Need for Legislative Reform Does Not Grant the Majority’s Bulldozing Through Inadequately Discussed Bill

Judicial Reform Foundation
2024-5-27

On May 17th, severe altercations erupted in the Legislative Yuan during the deliberation on several draft legislations, notably the Legislative Reform Bill and others, resulting in multiple legislators being injured and hospitalized. Concerned citizens and students gathered outside the Legislative Yuan to advocate for more inclusive and democratic deliberations.

A core issue arising from the recent parliamentary conflicts is the attempt by the opposition parties, Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People's Party (TPP), which currently hold the majority, to push through the Legislative Reform Bill that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) failed to address during its eight years in power, leading to a series of legislative clashes.

In response, the Judicial Reform Foundation issued the following statement and advocates that,

1. Any legislative reform bill requires thorough deliberation, and the proceedings and minutes from May 17th should be invalidated.
2. The legislative process must uphold procedural justice, foster comprehensive debate, and ensure oversight across partisan lines.
3. The ruling party must recognize the public's urgent demand for parliamentary reform and commit to a more proactive approach.

I. The ruling party also bears responsibility for conflicts today due to its past eight years of inaction while holding parliamentary majority

The recent conflict is rooted in the efforts of the KMT and TPP to forcefully advance the Legislative Reform Bill.

Ironically, legislative reform was also a major campaign promise made by the DPP during the 2016 elections. However, once the DPP securing a parliamentary majority, they started to procedurally obstruct proposals from opposition parties and suggestions from civil societies. With a DPP majority in the Legislative Yuan for the past 8 years, there has been virtually no progress on important reform initiatives such as enhancing parliamentary investigative powers and enforcing ethical standards among legislators.

It during its majority tenure in the past 8 years, the DPP appeared to be hesitant to enhance legislative oversight of the executive branch and showed a lack of genuine intent to promote parliamentary reform. From this perspective, while the DPP criticizes the opposition for forcing through these bills, they also attribute a share of responsibility for the current disarray.

II. The KMT and TPP’s double standard in advocating for reform while obstructing it

In advocating for legislative reform, the opposition parties, KMT and TPP, are themselves required to carefully considered whether the bills they propose meet public expectations, transcend partisan interests, and foster extensive discussion. In contrast, the legislative process has demonstrated a tyranny of the majority.

On the one hand, the opposition parties advocate for legislative reform, yet on the other, they jointly obstruct alternative proposals and refuse debate. Additionally, on February 19th, the KMT caucus rejected to provide self-disciplinary information regarding conflict of interest to civil society organizations, including the Citizen Congress Watch, which further raises doubts about their purported drive for parliamentary reform.

Furthermore, the proposed Contempt of Parliament legislation has an overly vague and expansive scope of application. Its potential implications including that public officials who violate summons to provide information to any individual legislature member could be fined or face impeachment or discipline is an extreme abuse of investigatory power.

These problems have greatly heightened skepticism across the society regarding whether KMT and TPP’s reform efforts are actually genuine.

III. Urging cross-party dialogue to resolve parliamentary stalemate

1. Both the procedural and substantive legitimacy of the current legislative amendments are highly questionable.

According to Article 63 of the Constitution, the Legislative Yuan must “deliberate” before the "passage" of a bill. Furthermore, Article 7 of the Legislative Yuan Functions Act requires all proposed legislature and budget bills to undergo a three-reading procedure, encompassing review, debate, and then voting. The purpose of these procedural rules is to facilitate the expression of minority opinion, their inclusion into public records, and to influence the voting results through open proceedings, thereby ensuring a proper balance of conflicting interests.

Unfortunately, the opposition parties have resorted to aggressive tactics which effectively excludes the non-majority from substantive review and discussion of their proposed bills in the committee meeting. This conduct is clearly in contravention of the essence of parliamentary reform. We urge all parties, irrespective of political affiliation, to uphold the principles of rational discourse and transparency throughout this legislative process. The legitimacy of reform hinges on substantive debates concerning the content of the proposals and the communication to the public when presenting proposals and raising reasonable inquiries about alternative versions of the bill.

Currently, what is being suppressed is not only the text of the bills, but also the entire civil society. Prior to opposition party legislators reading the pre-negotiated texts on May 17th, civil societies were unable to access the content of the proposed bill; the Legislative Yuan was completely untransparent to the public about how legislative reform would be conducted. Even the non-majority legislators only received the confirmed version of the proposed bill on the day of the meeting. During the discussion of the legislative reform bill, legislators did not engage in substantive discussion, so how could they have made an informed decision required to pass the bill? A lack of substantive discussion in committee reviews and party negotiations should be considered a significant violation of the Constitution.

In summary, democracy is not merely about securing enough votes to pass legislation but also about transparency, participation, understanding, deliberation, and debate before decision-making, which is the essence of procedural justice.

2. We call upon members of parliament to collaboratively address these issues across party lines.

We believe that if the opposition parties genuinely believe their proposed reform bills are reasonable, beneficial, and legitimate, they should engage in dialogue, defend the legitimacy of their proposals, and allow public scrutiny, rather than obstructing the scheduling and deliberation of the proposed bills in the Procedure Committee or through other means.

The ruling party should also take proactive steps to address past unfulfilled promises. Besides rejecting unreasonable proposals, it should either offer amendments to a proposal or feasible solutions to ensure appropriate and effective legislative oversight of the executive branch.

In summary, we believe that both the ruling and opposition parties share responsibility for the current parliamentary deadlock. Both sides should take a step back and allow the parliament to resume its function of open, transparent, and rational discourse. This will ensure that legislative reform will not merely be a change in legislative text, but rather a means to practice and constrain disorderly conduct, further enhancing parliamentary proceedings.

We hope that despite disparate political stances on policy and ideology, all parties can reconcile and cooperate with the goal of upholding the constitutional order of a free democracy. Accusing the oppositions of being 'anti-democratic' only deepen political divides and hinder the inclusion of public opinion in parliament.

No political party will remain in majority forever. All parties should understand that legislative rules and procedures in and of themselves have their constitutional significance and should not be altered arbitrarily for partisan interests.

Reasonable procedures should be mutually respected and adhered to ensure procedural safeguards and fair treatment for diverse public opinion, allowing all perspectives to be freely and fully expressed. Parliamentary reforms undertaken through such established procedures can then earn broad acceptance across all parties. Preserving these democratic norms is essential to deepen, solidify and enable the continued flourishing of Taiwan's democratic system.