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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS