用Podcast訂閱本節目 
Rti 中央廣播電臺 
17日的立法院會上，多項法案在未經實質討論的情況下，藍白兩黨聯手以人數優勢強行表決通過部分條文，此舉不只震驚台灣公民，也嚇壞關心台灣的國際學者，今天(20日)至少7位國際學者站出來譴責藍白兩黨破壞台灣民主，並向台灣社會提出建言。
17日的立法院會上，針對立院職權行使法、藐視國會罪等在未經實質討論的情況下，藍白兩黨聯手以人數優勢強行表決通過部分條文，此舉不只震驚台灣公民，也嚇壞關心台灣的國際學者，台北市議員趙怡翔表示，許多國際學者對此感到無比焦慮，因此在他和立委林楚茵的協助下，今天(20日)在立法院舉辦記者會並公開連署聲明。
台灣人公共事務會(FAPA)前會長楊英育(Bob Yang)表示，對於上週五立法院會發生的事感到既震驚又失望；美國在台協會前處長、國立政治大學客座教授司徒文(William Stanton)則表示，在野黨提出不合乎憲法的國會改革法案、否定民主程序和民意，他無法想像美國政府或其他民主國家的政府會接受這些行徑。
美國籍律師費浩文(Michael Fahey)則指出，上週五立法院會上，立委們不清楚國民黨和民眾黨談好的合併版法案內容，就直接進行表決，這是嚴重的程序瑕疵。
就法案內容而言，費浩文(Michael Fahey)說，其他國家確實有藐視國會罪，例如美國實行藐視國會罪已經好幾百年了，他建議，台灣制定這項法律之前，應納入專家意見，避免法律制度被拿來當作政治武器。他說：『(英語原音)對台灣來說，比較合適的做法是，先退一步，召開某種全國性法律專家會議，根據台灣的特殊情況，具體商議怎麼制定有效的藐視國會罪，並確保藐視國會罪和立法院的調查權不會成為政治化的釣魚式盤查(Fishing Expedition)，以致於被用來發動政治的法律戰。』
根據交通部資料顯示，雪山隧道興建工程從1991年開始動工，由於地質不佳、開挖不順利，進度嚴重落後，通車時間一改再改，直到15年後、2006年才完工。費浩文(Michael Fahey)指出，台灣過去建造雪山隧道花了那麼多時間，藍白兩黨力推的法案要求政府10年內蓋好一條貫穿中央山脈的高速公路，顯然不太合理。
身為台灣女婿，美國喬治梅森大學教授韋傑理(Gerrit van der Wees)表示，他愛台灣，藍白兩黨的行徑卻破壞了台灣的民主，嚴重損害台灣的國際聲譽，他強烈呼籲在野黨撤回法案，重新提出對台灣人民有利的法案，並按照程序實質審查。
連署名單、連署聲明全文及官方中譯版如下：
Joint International Statement on Legislative Reforms Proposed in Taiwan's Legislature
As longtime supporters, advocates, and friends of Taiwan, we the undersigned express our strong concern and disappointment about the set of parliamentary reforms proposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan Peoples' Party (TPP).
Whilst reforms are a natural process arising from the parliamentary process, including in Taiwan, the set proposed by the two parties exceed the bounds of those found in constitutional democracies around the world, subvert the rule of law and parliamentary procedures, and should be taken in the context of the KMT's stated objective of undermining good governance.
Following Taiwan's democratic elections in January 2024, the DPP received a historic third term in office, with victory by then Vice President Lai Ching-te. However, parliament became deeply divided, with none of the three major parties receiving a majority, leading the KMT and TPP to form a tactical alliance with joint support for a series of parliamentary reforms.
Major controversies encompassed within the reforms include the introduction of contempt of parliament charges, requiring the head of state to report to and take questions from legislators, and broadening the Legislature's investigatory powers.
While on the surface these reforms may appear salient, they fail to take into account Taiwan's unique constitutional framework and legislative practices. They further surpass the scope and power of parliamentary authority found in most other constitutional democracies, including allowing for government officials to be jailed simply for asking questions during hearings.
Under the proposals, which have not been publicized for any review, during parliamentary hearings, government officials may be jailed for up to a year for remarks deemed by legislators to be concealed or untrue, making the latter arbitrators of truth in a divided political environment. If officials were to reply with questions of their own, a jail term of up to six months may apply.
We note that in most constitutional democracies, while contempt of parliament or congress charges exist, they have generally applied to the defiance of lawfully ordered subpoenas or lying in the course of judicial investigations. No democracy has applied contempt charges to officials discharging duties during the course of regular hearings or for merely “talking back.”
This proposal is particularly problematic given Taiwan's political climate. The KMT caucus whip, Fu Kun-chi, said that the objective of the reform was for the DPP to "not be able to find any cabinet officials." Another KMT legislator, Weng Hsiao-ling, recently said that during hearings the legislative and executive branches were a "top to bottom relationship," in contravention of constitutional principles.
Furthermore, a KMT legislator, Hsu Chiao-hsin, is engaged in a bitter dispute with the Foreign Ministry having been sued for leaking classified documents; KMT legislator Ma Wen-chun is also under investigation for potentially sending classified information to South Korean authorities about Taiwan's top secret submarine program.
All of this suggests that the goal of the reform is not to support good governance, but to broaden the authority of the legislative branch in a way that usurps and penalizes the Executive. This clearly violates the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution of the Republic of China, as Taiwan is formally known by.
Other unconstitutional proposals can be found within the reform package, including a demand that Taiwan's president participate in a legislative question and answer session.The ROC Constitution only allows for the president to engage in a 'State of the Nation'address, which is why former KMT president Ma Ying-jeou, a legal jurist, had once said such a proposal would "confound" the president's role.
Furthermore, in terms of broadening parliament's investigative powers, this is a role that is currently attributed to the Control Yuan, another coequal branch of Taiwan's government. While there have been discussions about potentially shuttering the institution, this has not yet taken place. As a result, serious questions would arise about a potential overreach of legislative authority.
All of this is to say that the reform proposals that have been put forward are potentially unconstitutional and a usurpation of political power held by other coequal branches of government. They tarnish Taiwan's image for good governance and further create political rifts at a time it can ill afford to do so, given growing challenges and complexities from Beijing.
But more problematically, these reforms are being proposed in an environment of repressed political debate. The text of the KMT-TPP reforms has not been published for public review, in contravention of longstanding legislative practice. For the first time in 35 year, KMT speaker Han Kuo-yu has asked that legislators pass this using a show of hands instead of a recorded vote.
Furthermore, the KMT has disallowed DPP lawmakers to make amendments, debate, or even review individual articles within the reform package. This has curtailed informed debate. It has also rightfully spurred accusations that discussions are taking place behind closed doors, in an untransparent manner, all actions that the reform package was ostensibly supposed to prevent.
Legislative clashes took place May 17th as DPP legislators attempted to prevent the reforms from being passed without public disclosure and substantive debate. Hundreds of protestors were also gathered outside the Legislature in opposition to the bills being considered. Thousands more may come together when the bill is taken up again on May 21.
We, the undersigned group of international academics, journalists, and politicians, are deeply concerned about the polarizing effects of these reforms on Taiwan's society and negative implications for Taiwan's global standing.
With a new administration being sworn in on May 20 and hundreds of international dignitaries flying in for the occasion, they should be witness to Taiwan's robust democracy not the depth of its divisions. More importantly, the citizens of Taiwan deserve a government that is responsible, accountable, and transparent, all of which this reform bill undermines.
Signed,
1.Bob I. Yang, University of Missouri, Kansas City, United States
2.Clive Ansley, Retired professor of Chinese History and Chinese Law, University of Windsor and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada
3.Coen Blaauw, Executive Director (Ret.), Formosan Association for Public Relations, Washington DC, United States
4.Michael Danielsen, Chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark
5.June Dreyer, University of Miami, FL, United States
6.Michael Fahey, American lawyer, member of the California Bar Association
7.Zsuzsa Ferenczy, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan and Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Belgium
8.Christopher Hughes, London School of Economics (Emeritus),London, United Kingdom
9.Thomas G. Hughes,Former chief of staff to Senator Claiborne Pell, Washington DC
10.Sasa Istenic, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
11.Su-mei Kao, National President, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, USA
12.Guermantes Lailari, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan
13.André Laliberté, University of Ottawa, Ontario Canada
14.Lutgard Lams, University of Leuven, Brussels, Belgium
15.Benjamin Lewis, PLATracker, Washington DC
16.John J. Tkacik, Institute of World Politics, Washington DC
17.David Schak, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia
18.Scott E. Simon, University of Ottawa, Ontario Canada
19.William A. Stanton, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan
20.Wen-ti Sung, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
21.Gerrit van der Wees, George Mason University, Fairfax, United States
22.Stephen M. Young, Retired US Foreign Service Officer, Ambassador, Former Director AIT
23.Bill Sharp, Center for Chinese Studies, University of Hawaii, Manoa
24.Marcin Mateusz Jerzewski, European Values Center for Security Policy
25.Michael Turton, Columnist, Taipei Times
26.Sam Rainsy, Leader of the Cambodian Opposition
27.Chung-Kai Sin, Former Legislative Council Member of Hong Kong
28.Celito Arlegue, Executive Director, Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats
針對台灣國會改革之國際聲明(官方中文譯本)
作為台灣的長期友人、支持者及倡議者，我們下列簽署者對中國國民黨與台灣民眾黨提出的國會改革方案表達嚴正關切與擔憂。
雖然改革由國會自然形成，但國民黨與民眾黨所提出的改革方案已超越國際各憲政民主國家的規範，顛覆法治理念、違反程序正義，更遑論國民黨公然宣稱要以破壞良好治理作為目標。
隨著今年一月的總統大選，民進黨贏得創紀錄的連續第三個任期，由時任副總統賴清德獲勝。然而，國會卻分裂嚴重，三大黨均未過半，導致國民黨和民眾黨結成策略聯盟，共同推動系列國會改革。
這系列改革中的主要爭議包括引入藐視國會罪、要求總統赴立法院報告並接受即問即答，並擴大立法院的調查權。
雖然表面上看這些改革可能顯得合理，但其中內容實則違反台灣獨特的憲政架構與立法精神，也超越其他憲政民主國家的立法權限，尤其是政府官員只要「反質詢」即有可能被關。
上述提案仍未公布，但其中包括在國會質詢過程中，政府官員可能會因為立法委員片面認為內容有隱匿或虛偽陳述，則面臨最高一年以下有期徒刑，這使得立法委員成為台灣分歧政治環境中真理的仲裁者。若官員被認定為「反質詢」就可能被處最高六個月有期徒刑。
我們注意到，在大多數憲政民主國家，雖然有藐視國會罪的存在，這通常適用於未理會出庭作證傳票或在司法案調查過程中撒謊。沒有任何民主國家因為政府官員在履行備詢義務過程中被判藐視國會罪，或是僅因為「回嘴」而被提出藐視指控。
考慮到台灣的政治環境，國會改革方案更將成為問題。國民黨黨團總召傅崐萁曾表示，改革的目的是讓民進黨「找不到人當部會首長」。另一位國民黨立委翁曉玲最近也說出，立法院對行政部門質詢是「上對下」關係，違反憲政倫理。
此外，國民黨立委徐巧芯因洩密文件案被告而與外交部發生争執；國民黨立委馬文君也因為疑似向韓國政府寄送有關台灣潛艇計畫的機密資料而被調查。
上述皆表明，這些改革的目標不是為加強良善治理，而是盼透過立法院的擴權，剝奪並懲處行政部門的權力。這顯然違反中華民國憲法五權分立的憲政原則。
藍白國會改革方案還有其他違憲之處，包括要求總統赴立法院備詢。此超越中華民國憲法規範之國情報告，這也是國民黨籍前總統、法律學者馬英九曾表示將會混淆總統權責分工的原因。
此外，在擴大國會調查權方面，目前這項職責主要歸屬於監察院。儘管有人曾討論廢除監察院，此依然未發生，爱引發立法院擴權之爭議。
鑒於上述理由，藍白所提出的改革提案有違反憲法之嫌，並且篡奪行政院與監察院之政治權力。這不但損害台灣良善治理的形象，更在當前來自北京的挑戰日益遽增的前提下，進一步加深台灣的政治分歧。
而更加嚴重的問題是，這些國會改革提案並未獲得充分的政治討論。上述改革方案尚未公佈予民眾審查，明顯違反過往的立法慣例。國民黨籍立法院院長韓國瑜還允許立法院35年來首次以舉手而非記錄投票的方式處理本案。
此外，國民黨更不允許民進黨立委對改革方案進行修改、辯論，甚至剝奪審查的機會。這限縮了公眾討論的空間，也理所當然地使部分人指控上述提案是在閉門會議中產出，而這本來應該是國會改革最該避免的事。
民進黨立委於5月17日時試圖阻止國會改革方案在未經充分審查與實質辯論的情況下獲得通過，引發立法院衝突。數百名民眾也因此聚集在立法院門口反對此國會改革案。國會改革相關法案於5月21日再審議時，可能也會有數千名民眾聚集抗議。
我們作為國際學者、記者與政治人物深刻擔憂此國會改革方案對台灣社會所產生的分歧，以及對台灣國際地位的負面影響。
隨著新政府5月20日宣誓就職，數百名國際政要已飛來參加就職盛會，他們應該見證台灣的壯大民主，而不是台灣社會的嚴重分歧。更重要的是，台灣公民值得擁有負責任、有公信力與透明的政府，而此竟成為該國會改革方案正試圖要破壞的目標。
