Imagine for a second what Taiwan would be like today if the Wild Lily Student Movement of the 1990s had not occurred or if student activists had stayed at home rather than protest the absurdity of the First National Congress, elected in China in 1947 under then Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration, serving in perpetuity in Taiwan.
Imagine what would happen if the democratic developments over the last two decades were undermined or the government attempted to turn back the clock. Most of us have a hard time envisioning this because such a scenario seems palpably absurd in a democracy.
Taiwan’s democracy would not be the same if these students had not voiced their discontent and protested against what they considered to be unreasonable two decades ago.
This is why National Kaohsiung Normal University’s recent decision to ban its students from taking part in rallies or parades and to require that faculty seek the school’s consent before making public statements was both ridiculous and alarming in equal measure.
The move is incomprehensible for various reasons, the most obvious being that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which grants people freedom to assemble.
The Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No 445 defines this freedom as one of “the most important basic human rights in a democracy,” along with freedom of speech and the right to education.
The Constitution stipulates that the government cannot limit people’s freedom to assemble, unless it is believed that an event will infringe upon the freedoms of others, disturb social order or harm public well-being.
Although the University Act (大學法) entitles universities to write their own regulations governing student discipline, it does not give them the right to infringe their students’ basic human rights.
What compounds this absurdity is that the ban was proposed and passed by the university — one of the nation’s major “cradles” for junior and senior-high school teachers — partly because the school was following precedents set by two schools of similar nature and importance — National Taiwan Normal University and National Changhua University of Education.
It is unclear when these other schools wrote the ban into their student discipline regulations, but Taiwan Normal has revised its regulations on at least three occasions since January 2005, while Changhua has made four revisions since October 2002, but the article still remains.
Moreover, the University Act requires universities to submit a copy of their student discipline regulations to the Ministry of Education after each revision. The ministry has known about the article the whole time, but never felt the ban was problematic until recently.
This might be considered a minor oversight if it weren’t for the fact that the ministry set up a human rights education committee in April 2001, and sponsored a nationwide human rights awareness project. at schools between 2005 and 2008. It looks like some school officials must have skipped class.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS