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.
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
RSS