At this time, the section which is considered to have been changed the most from the original intent is Article 4, covering jurisdiction regarding those entering and leaving the country. The words "public security organs" were changed to "police organs," eliminating both the military and the garrison command from jurisdiction. This means people can enjoy even more freedom, and greater guarantees.

Following negotiations between the government and party, sentences for crimes included in Articles 6 and 7 have been reduced. The jurisdiction of military courts over current military personnel originally in Article 8 has been modified to exclude military jurisdiction from all kinds of ordinary non-military crimes like assault, fraud, etc. This change will help to guarantee the rights of military people and conforms better to Article 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits military jurisdiction over non-military personnel.

The two articles which caused the greatest debate were the second and the ninth.

The second originally read that assemblies or organizations of the people "must not violate the policies of following the Constitution and anti-communism, and must not advocate separatism." Some legislators felt the wording was too ambiguous and wanted to scrap the whole article. After revision, the article read "must not violate the Constitution, nor advocate communism nor the division of national territory." This change clarified the article considerably. All assemblies and organizations will have to adhere to these three principles after the lifting of martial law.

The ninth article states that non-military personnel whose cases were under military jurisdiction under martial law will not be able to appeal to the civilian courts after martial law is lifted.

What caused the problem was that several legislators from the "Democratic Progressive Party" wanted this article eliminated to preserve the right of appeal of those in question. Some ruling party legislators argued that there are too many such individuals, and that some of the cases are so old that it would be impossible to recall all the witnesses and evidence. Some suggested that the government declare a special amnesty to celebrate the end of martial law and to express their sincerity.

Because the two sides held firm and discussion got nowhere, the DPP legislators staged a walkout in protest, after which Article 9 passed.

Looking at the overall process, though the ruling party and the DPP often engaged in heated disputes, sometimes over points of order, they nevertheless maintained constant communication, negotiation, and discussion, and both made reasonable concessions.

Given the current balance of seats in the Legislative Yuan, the government would have no trouble simply bulldozing legislation through. But they have adopted the method of adjustment, compromise, and conciliation, revealing their sincerity and increasing openness.

And though the relatively tiny DPP used passive resistance like boycotts and walkouts, they still were willing to offer opinions and to discuss, revealing their responsible attitude vis-a-vis their roles as representatives of the people. Although not all their suggestions were accepted, they struggled hard to communicate. Though they twice walked out on discussions of a couple of articles, for example, they did not abandon their right to address the other articles, for which they participated in the whole process of deliberation.

Thus the National Security Draft Law passed the Legislative Yuan. Although the process was stormy, the final version is even more protective of people's rights and freedoms than the original--so it was worth all the trouble.