The Taiwan People's Party (TPP) on Sept. 22 disputed an instruction from President 
Lai Ching-te that the Legislative Yuan should not cut or freeze personnel spending, issued as he promulgated this year's central government budget. The dispute follows the legislature's freeze on Premier Cho Jung-tai's salary for September through December, a provision CNA reported was written into the budget passed on third reading. Lai promulgated the budget on Sept. 18 after it had been held up for more than 350 days since last year, the Liberty Times reported.
What did the instruction say? The Constitution protects the right to work of people in public service, Lai said in the instruction, which CNA reported went on to call personnel expenses statutory funds that the legislature should not cut or freeze. The instruction prompted debate, the Liberty Times reported.
How did the TPP respond? TPP chair Huang Kuo-chang, speaking in a live interview on host Wang Chien-chiu's programme, said that even supposing the Constitution does guarantee the premier's salary, "Then may I ask, does the Constitution guarantee the pensions of retired police officers and retired firefighters?" Those pensions rest on a law passed on third reading by the legislature, countersigned by the premier and promulgated by the president, he said, yet to this day not a cent has been paid. The party called Lai's instruction merely the president's personal view, CNA reported.
What did the TPP caucus say? TPP caucus secretary-general Hung Yu-hsiang said in a joint interview with reporters that it is not for the Executive Yuan to decide what is unconstitutional. Pay for military, police and firefighting personnel is also statutory spending, he said, and having left it out of the budget, the Executive Yuan cannot selectively insist that Cho's statutory salary may not be cut. The caucus called that selective budgeting a case of deceiving the public to win a good name, the Liberty Times reported.
Who decides whether it is constitutional? TPP legislator Hsu Chung-hsin, who has a legal background, said the power to interpret the Constitution lies with the Constitutional Court. He said Lai's remarks were only the president's personal opinion, not a final constitutional interpretation, and that the question of constitutionality should be ruled on by the court.
Figures referenced: Lai Ching-te. — JudgeMarket.
