The latest pan-blue demonstration on Saturday at Taipei's Chiang Kai-shek Memorial ended in violence, and the pan-blues are planning another large rally on April 10. These demonstrations against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his administration are of continuing concern to those who are affected by instability in the capital.
The issue of whether or not to grant approval for the April 10 protest has also been a thorn in the side of both the central and local governments. Taipei City Government, acting pursuant to the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法), approved the pan-blue camp's application for the April 10 rally, while refusing its application for 16 other demonstrations between April 3 and May 20.
However, the pan-blue supporters at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall on Saturday did not end their rally at the time required, instead swarming to Ketagalan Boulevard, where clashes occurred between the demonstrators and police. In response, the Cabinet called on the city government to revoke the permit that it had issued for the April 10 demonstration.
Despite the fact that the pan-blue camp's calls for rallies are starting to sound like a broken record, the government should not restrict or prohibit requests to organize assemblies, as these are rights enshrined in the Constitution.
These activities also act as positive channels through which people can express their political views and dissatisfaction.
A minority in their number has caused clashes, injuries and inconvenience for residents in the neighborhood, but the situation is not serious enough to justify refusing their applications to hold demonstrations.
The Council of Grand Justices' Interpretation No. 445 lists those kinds of behavior considered to be unconstitutional, such as that for which there is sufficient evidence to prove that the national security has been compromised, or social order or the public interest threatened, or that which may endanger life, limb or freedom or inflict major damage on property.
The interpretation stresses that it is inappropriate to prevent rallies unless special circumstances apply.
It also says that if the agency responsible for approving the rally considers that its potential damage to the social order is based on an assumption rather than on the actual situation -- that is, if the rally does not constitute an immediate and obvious danger -- then refusal to grant the application would constitute undue interference on the part of the government.
According to the law, the government must not refuse the pan-blue camp's application for the April 10 rally.
However, the pan-blues have proved ineffective in controlling their crowds, both by being inflammatory and failing to clean up after themselves.
Therefore, the government should approve the application and make it clear that the pan-blue camp promise to disperse its people at the required time and clean up the location, or else risk having future applications rejected.
This will give an equal amount of consideration to both democracy and the law.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS