TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — The DPP on Tuesday criticized KMT Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) for not allowing a vote on the Legislative Yuan’s Friday agenda during a Procedure Committee meeting.
With KMT Legislator Ko Ju-chun (葛如鈞) absent, the opposition lacked the numbers to outvote the DPP, per ETtoday. The DPP caucus’ proposed agenda — including amendments to the National Security Act and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area — was widely expected to pass if put to a vote.
DPP committee members objected to a competing proposal from the TPP, triggering the need for a committee vote. However, Weng opted to forward both proposals to the plenary session for resolution, drawing sharp criticism from DPP lawmakers.
DPP Legislator Chen Pei-yu (陳培瑜) lodged a protest, noting Weng had been able to chair the committee with DPP support, per Mirror Media. DPP members insisted the committee should vote on the competing proposals.
In response, Weng said previous DPP chairs, including former lawmakers Wu Ping-jui (吳秉叡) and Tuan Yi-kang (段宜康), had also forwarded proposals without holding votes. KMT Legislator Lin Pei-hsiang (林沛祥) said the party was following precedent, adding that then lawmaker Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) had taken similar action when he chaired the committee.
DPP Legislator Fan Yun (范雲) said the opposition, which holds a legislative majority, could defeat the DPP’s proposals during Friday’s plenary session but had chosen not to, per Liberty Times. She argued the opposition was avoiding a vote to limit attention on the DPP’s proposals.
DPP Legislator Lin Chun-hsien (林俊憲) said KMT resistance centered on a proposed amendment to the National Security Act that would require lawmakers to notify authorities before visiting China, per SETN. He suggested that the KMT was reluctant to publicly justify opposing such measure.
Commenting on the dispute, DPP Legislator Shen Fa-hui (沈發惠) said that when committee members object to competing proposals, a vote should be held. He warned that allowing the chair to decide matters unilaterally could undermine the committee’s future functioning.
