Where is the Legislative Yuan's Inside Force?

Where is the Legislative Yuan's Inside Force?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 19, 2012

Summary: Last week the DPP occupied the Legislative Yuan podium for five days and four nights, and prevented the legislature from conducting business. When reporters asked Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng when the legislature would convene, Wang replied: It depends on when the KMT can clear the podium. Wang said: Once the KMT caucus clears the podium, I can return and preside over the legislature, even if it's in the middle of the night.

Full Text below:

Last week the DPP occupied the Legislative Yuan podium for five days and four nights, and prevented the legislature from conducting business. When reporters asked Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng when the legislature would convene, Wang replied: It depends on when the KMT can clear the podium. Wang said: Once the KMT caucus clears the podium, I can return and preside over the legislature, even if it's in the middle of the night.

Wang's response was mind-boggling. Party A resorts to brute force to occupy the podium, making it impossible for the legislature to conduct business. Yet Wang expects Party B to assume responsibility for clearing the podium? Wang is essentially saying that whether the Legislative Yuan can convene depends on who is able to occupy and hold the podium using brute force, even if it means drawing blood. .

The discussion has now turned to whether the Speaker of the Legislature should invoke his police powers. Speaker Wang as it turned out, had nothing new to add. He said: The legislature is independent. It must not be subject to intervention by outside forces. I am the Speaker of the Legislature. I will not invoke my police powers.

Wang's answer has two problems. One. The Speaker of the Legislature may have his own political style. The approach he adopts may be hard or soft, flexible or rigid, depending upon the situation. But the Speaker of the Legislature must remain fair and neutral. He must maintain order. He must take care of business. President Wang insisted he would not invoke his police powers. That is his prerogative. But he must ensure that the legislature is able to get its work done. After all the Speaker of the Legislature has a constitutional duty to "maintain order and tend to the business of the legislature." This is not a matter of discretion. The Speaker may remain above the fray. But he may not forsake his duties.

No one is forcing the Speaker of the Legislature to invoke his police powers. But the Speaker must ensure that the legislature can take care of business. This is the least he can do. Otherwise any Speaker of the Legislature can cite discretion as an excuse for dereliction of duty. That is hypocrisy.

Two. Wang refers to the invoking of police powers as "intervention by outside forces." His spin bears scant resemblance to reality. The Sargeants at Arms of the Legislative Yuan are not "outside forces." They are "inside forces." They answer to Legislative Yuan officials. They are not part of the National Police Administration. Speaker Wang Jin-pyng personally approved the implementation of the Legislative Yuan Security Guard Duty Regulation. Article 5 stipulates that "In order to maintain order, prevent harm, and protect members of the legislature, security personnel should enter the premises and fulfill their guard duties at the behest of legislators or the Chairman." The Legislative Yuan's police powers have nothing to do with the Executive Yuan National Police. Administration. It is not an "outside force." It is an "inside force," answerable to the Speaker or the Chairman.

Most legislatures in democratic nations the world over, including the US and the UK have "inside forces" such as Sargeants at Arms. In the past European parliaments have ejected legislators because they were too disruptive. It has been some time since the Speaker of the Legislature has invoked these police powers.

The Legislative Yuan Sargeants at Arms are an "inside force." Referring to any action on their part as "intervention by outside forces" is grossly misleading. The legislature has been paralyzed. It can no longer conduct business. The Speaker of the Legislature is well within his rights to call in the Sargeants at Arms. After all, they are an "inside force." But he must first seek other "inside forces" to break the deadlock. He cannot wait until legislators spill blood before clearing opposition party legislators from the poidium. Outside forces may not intervene in the Legislative Yuan. But the Speaker of the Legislature must tell the public what the Legislative Yuan's "inside forces" are doing about the occupation?

The violent protests in the Legislative Yuan have an historical context. During the transition from the authoritarian era to the democratic era, many injustices occurred. These injustices provided a veneer of legitimacy for violent protests, and helped them win public sympathy. Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chang Chun-hsiung once slapped Speaker of the Legislature Liang Su-yung in the face. But martial law was lifted over 20 years ago. The political system is increasingly fair. The workings of the legislature are increasingly transparent. Most people will not tolerate protests that are excessively violent. Suppose the Speaker of the Legislature insisted on walking up to the podium? Would any legislator dare slap him in the face? We have gone from cracking skulls to counting heads. Both the ruling and opposition parties should make an effort. But the Speaker of the Legislature bears the greatest responsibility in getting the Legislative Yuan to change its habits.

Take the U.S. beef imports controversy. The two parties clashed. The two sides adopted such rigid postures they had trouble backing down. The Speaker of the Legislature should impose order and discipline. Paradoxically he may provide both parties with a face saving measure. If the Speaker can set two successful examples, the Legislative Yuan wrestling match may end without bloodshed. In Europe and the United States one no longer sees sargeants at arms ejecting people. This is because many legislators were ejected in the past.

Speaker Wang Jin-pyng is a political player, adept at smoothing things over. His political savvy is hard to match. This is why Speaker Wang is perceived as "fair and neutral." This is also why he has the influence required to restore order. Speaker Wang can of course choose not to invoke his police powers. We affirm his decision to exercise restraint. But he must use "inside force" to restore the dignity of the the Speaker of the Legislature. He must not wait for any "outside force" to clear the podium on his behalf.

立法院的「內力」在哪裡？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.19

上周，民進黨霸占立院主席台五天四夜期間，議事不能進行，記者問立法院長王金平何時能開會？王院長的答覆是：要看國民黨何時能把主席台清出來而定。他說：只要國民黨黨團把主席台清出來，我半夜三更都可回去開會。

這是國人難以理解的答案。甲黨占據了主席台，議事能否繼續進行，竟然全視乙黨能否自力「排除」而定；這樣的見解，不啻就是說，立院能不能開會，全視誰有本事用暴力宰制主席台而定，亦即必須用流血來決定。

議論又指向了立法院長應否行使警察權，這一次，王院長也沒有新的答案，他說：國會自主，不容外力介入，我擔任國會議長，不會動用警察權。

這個答案有兩個盲點。一、立法院長可以選擇自己的風格，剛、柔、寬、猛，皆可隨情適性；但是，立法院長卻沒有任何理由違背「應本公平中立原則，維持立法院秩序，處理議事」的法定職責。例如，王院長自可堅持不動用警察權，這是一種風格的選擇；但他也必須在堅持此種風格之下，同時能夠保證立院議事之完整進行。畢竟，立法院長的基本憲政職守，是在「維持秩序，處理議事」，而不只是表現風格而已；院長可以珍惜羽毛，但不能廢弛職責。

其實，沒有人強迫立法院長動用警察權，但不動用警察權的院長亦必須能使議事得以進行，這是他應當具備的最底線的自我要求；否則，任何院長皆可用風格作為失職失能的藉口，那是鄉愿。

二、謂動用警察權是「外力介入」，這種說法似不夠精準。立法院的駐院警衛其實是立法院的「內力」，指揮權屬立院當局，而不屬警政署；此論的根據是，由王金平院長親自核定實施的《立法院警衛勤務規則》第五條規定：「為維護會場秩序，防止危害及保護委員，警衛人員得應委員或主席之召喚，進入會場，執行警衛勤務。」由此可見，倘若立院動用警察權，並非由警政署或行政院的「外力」下令，而其實是院長或主席動用了「內力」。

舉世憲政民主國家的國會，如美、英諸國，大多配備了類如「糾儀長」（sergeant-at-arms）的「內力」；早年也屢見歐美議會把議員揪出場的鏡頭，而正由於胡鬧過頭者真的會被架出去，所以如今久已不聞議長動用警察權。

由於議場警衛是「內力」，若被指為「外力介入」，其實是根本的偏差。當國會出現議事癱瘓的局面，立法院長自可不使用警衛此一「內力」，但他即必須找到其他的「內力」來化解僵局，不能坐等立法委員用流血手段「把主席台清出來」。正因「外力不可介入立法院」，立法院長必須告訴國人：立法院的「內力」在哪裡？

立法院的暴力抗爭，有其歷史脈絡。早年在威權政治向民主政治過渡期間，政治上諸多不公不義，因此激越的暴力抗爭往往得以合理化，亦受民意同情，所以甚至曾發生民進黨立委張俊雄甩立法院長梁肅戎耳光之類的事；但是，解嚴二十餘年來，政治體制的公正性漸趨建立，議事的辯論也漸呈透明，倘若再出現過度、過當的暴力抗爭，恐怕未必能見容於多數國人。試想，如果今日立法院長堅持要走到議場的主席寶座上主持議事，難道還有立委敢甩立法院長一巴掌？因而，在「打破人頭」轉向「數人頭」的進化過程中，朝野各方皆應作出共同努力，而立法院長當然亦有為立法院「移風易俗」的重大責任。

以此次美牛案的衝突而言，兩黨對峙，其實相當程度地是因為姿態作足以致各自都下不了台所致。在此際，立法院長若能對議場秩序及議事紀律稍示堅持，也許反而能成為兩黨的下台階；只要院長作出了一次兩次成功的示範，立院的政黨角力就不至於動輒都要喊「戰到最後一滴血為止」。正如歐美今日議場不復見警衛抬人，本因過去架出了許多議員使然。

王金平院長是圓融通透的政治瑰寶，其政治之練達難有匹比；而正緣於王院長素有「公平中立」的形象，他就更有在立院撥亂反正的實力。王院長當然可以不動用警察權，我們亦頗肯定他的此種矜持，但他必須憑藉「內力」回到立法院長象徵憲法尊嚴的金色絲絨寶座上去，不能等待任何「外力」為他清出通道！