A Taipei District Court prosecutor recently applied for a “summary judgment” on the indictment of National Taiwan University sociology professor Lee Ming-tsung (李明璁), declaring that he was a “prime suspect” in an “illegal outdoor assembly” — a sit-in protest against the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) — in front of the Executive Yuan last November.
This was yet another example of juridical abuse of power that did not take into consideration the freedom of assembly, which is protected by the Constitution, international human rights law and the principle of proportionality in Article 26 of the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).
By staging a peaceful sit-in in front of the Executive Yuan, Lee and his students were exercising their basic rights of assembly and freedom of speech, which are also protected by the Constitution, international human rights law and especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that was signed by the government into law on May 14.
NOT A THREAT
Lee’s peaceful sit-in was not an immediate threat to anyone’s freedom, safety or possessions, nor was it a clear and present danger to the national security or social order.
The plaza in front of the Executive Yuan is the best place for ordinary people to express their opinions to the government.
So why are applications needed for peaceful sit-ins there? Can protesters be labeled as criminals simply because they did not file an application?
Several years ago, a group of National Chengchi University students staged a protest against high tuition fees in front of the Ministry of Education.
Legal circles were surprised when one of the students was indicted as a “prime suspect.”
At that time, the Taipei District Court commendably insisted on the protection of the student’s freedom of assembly.
PROPORTIONALITY
It cited the principle of proportionality in Article 26 of the Assembly and Parade Act, believing that even if the protest was an illegal outdoor assembly, the police still needed to take into account the balance between the public’s basic right of assembly and other laws and regulations when ordering them to disperse.
The student was found not guilty.
Unfortunately, the prosecutor insisted on appealing the case, and the Taiwan High Court failed to protect freedom of assembly by overturning the ruling of the District Court.
Instead, the court gave the student a choice between detention and a fine on probation.
Perhaps the court believed that it was doing the student a favor by handing down such a light penalty, just like the prosecutor’s application for “summary judgment” on the indictment of Lee.
SERIOUS BLOW
However, the judges were and are possibly still unaware that by doing so they have dealt a serious blow to the basic right of staging peaceful sit-ins in Taiwan.
Reform of the Assembly and Parade Act is inevitable. We should not only abolish the “permission system” in the Act but completely decriminalize such assemblies to protect the public’s basic right to peaceful sit-ins.
I would like to urge the judiciary to act bravely and be the last line of defense for the public’s right to peaceful sit-ins and freedom of speech.
Chang Wen-chen is an associate law professor at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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