[Global Times Special Correspondent Cheng Dong] Taiwan's "Executive Yuan" recently passed the draft amendment to the "Election and Recall Law", that is, the "Blackout Clause".
The "legislators" of the Democratic Progressive Party also took the opportunity to propose a revised version of the law, advocating the deletion of the "education" column in the election bulletin.
The public opinion on the island is scolding, and the DPP's move is really shameless.
According to Taiwan's "China Times" report on the 21st, DPP "legislators" Zhong Jiabin, Cai Shiyi, and He Zhiwei proposed a draft of "anti-gangster amendment law", a total of 24 co-signers, all of which are DPP "legislators".
In the proposal, they advocated the deletion of the word "education" in Article 47 of the "Election and Strike Law", which originally stipulated that the election bulletin should list candidates' academic qualifications, that is, the election bulletin will not list academic qualifications in the future.
The statement of the proposal stated that "the degree of education of a candidate has no certain correlation with whether it is sufficient to represent the will of the people, and the election bulletin should not compel the disclosure of a candidate's degree of education."
Zhong Jiabin claimed that various elections in the 1980s required different levels of education, and candidates must have the same level of education. does not exist.
During the discussion of Taiwan's "Legislative Yuan" program committee, Zeng Mingzong, the general convener of the Kuomintang party group, thought that "deleting the academic qualifications is very strange" and proposed to postpone the filing of the case. Finally, the case will not enter the review stage of law amendment for the time being.
"Legislative member" Li Dewei criticized that the DPP kept saying that it would fight against "black money" and that it wanted to amend the "anti-crime clause". After a long time, it turned out that it was going to fix this, especially the main proposer was Cai, whose doctorate was revoked before. Adaptation, "has reached the point of shamelessness".
KMT Chairman Zhu Lilun criticized on the 21st that the "legislator" whose thesis of the DPP was revoked proposed that the election bulletin not include academic qualifications. How could a democratic society do this?
Taipei City Councilor Wang Hongwei said that this is really a big joke. The purpose of the election bulletin is to provide more information for voters to refer to. Voters already have the right to know, but because a few people used fake degrees to wash their degrees, they had to delete the degree column. .
She called on the DPP politicians to rein in the precipice. If someone has the problem of washing their academic qualifications, they should conduct a thorough review, reform, and reflect instead of humiliating voters in this way.
Taipei city councilor Xu Qiaoxin taunted on the 21st, "How dare Cai adapt to propose by himself, he is always a bit ashamed to be a human being." Is this the review of the DPP?
It's really in place, it's really laughable.
On the 21st, Lin Weizhou, a "legislator" of the Kuomintang, proposed to amend the law to clarify that "if a false thesis is determined, he will not be allowed to run for election for life."
Anyone with a DUI record is also barred from running for life.
He said that former Hsinchu Mayor Lin Zhijian, Taoyuan Mayor Zheng Wencan, and Cai Shiyi were all convicted of plagiarizing their papers, and plagiarism and fraud were as serious as "black gold".
Facebook fans "Politician Shuang" choked, a bunch of candidates in the green camp were accused of plagiarizing papers, and the solution was not to write academic qualifications in the future, laughing to death, "What else can this ruling party expect?"
"United Daily News" commented on the 21st that people with a little knowledge understand that education and ability are not equated. The election bulletin includes photos, political opinions, names, and academic experience. Whether a person has a master’s or a doctor’s degree will change the vote, but how can a candidate who is not sure whether he has plagiarized or whether his degree is true can be trusted to grant public office authority?
The article stated that Cai Shiyi and others proposed unreasonable amendments that have nothing to do with anti-gangsters, wrapped up in the case of "anti-gangsters". Is this an open-minded review of the mistakes in governance, or is it a rush to pave the way for the next election?
"Is it for the public or for the private? I am afraid that the worst example has been written."