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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not