On Nov. 6, a group of students began a silent sit-in in front of the Executive Yuan. They demanded that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) apologize for heavy-handed police tactics that infringed human rights during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), that National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) and National Security Bureau Director-General Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明) step down and that the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) be amended. The government’s response to these demands has been disappointing.
When dealing with cross-strait exchanges, Ma, who used to annually commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, ignores democracy, rule of law and human rights. He gave free rein to the state monopoly on violence and turned his back on the rule of law and human rights in order to “receive a distinguished guest.” This is clearly indicative of an unqualified government lacking an understanding of the modern concept of rule of law.
The police actions, such as switching off the music in a record store and pulling down the store’s shutters, closing freeway lanes, barring people from carrying national flags in public or placing the Tibetan flag on scooters and confiscating digicams, highlighted the flaws in the Assembly and Parade Law and other regulations.
We should, however, be more concerned about the government’s later attempts to legitimize these actions and the backward attitudes toward democracy, rule of law and human rights that these attempts represent.
The Presidential Office claim that the record store incident was simply a case of cracking down on noise pollution was clearly a malicious fabrication. I wonder if Presidential Office spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦), with his doctorate in law, really understands the legal procedures for cracking down on noise pollution. Did the government try to dupe the public by trying to vindicate measures that failed to follow normal procedure?
When Cabinet Secretary-General Hsueh Hsiang-chuan (薛香川) and Minister of Education Cheng Jei-cheng (鄭瑞城) talked with student demonstrators, they stressed the importance of following the law. They either do not understand the meaning of rule of law, or made a mockery of Ma’s campaign promise to return the streets to the public.
This is a “new” government applying an antiquated and flawed view of rule of law and law enforcement. Hsueh’s statement that “politics is temporary” highlights the narrow power logic of old politicians, and was a classic both in its absurdity and in its irony.
The issue that should be discussed is not the narrow stand off between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should of course apologize for not amending the National Security Law (國安法), the Civic Organization Law (人團法) and the Assembly and Parade Law, all of which restrict the development of a civil society and caused the DPP government to suppress the wishes of the residents of Losheng Sanatorium and other disadvantaged groups.
So what changes can we expect from a new government praising “political ethics?” Does Ma have the determination to deal with the three above mentiond laws that he promoted?
The maintenance of fundamental democratic and legal values and respect for fundamental constitutional rights override temporary politics, including temporary parties, presidents and cross-strait meetings. As the government turns its back on these values, it is in no way different from the old government.
Liu Ching-yi is an associate professor of law in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS