A teacher who was the victim of police brutality during last year’s Sunflower movement has been awarded NT$300,000 in compensation by the Taipei District Court. Although this might be the first ruling of its kind in Taiwan, hopefully it will not be the last time police officers are held accountable for exorbitant actions.
Lin Ming-hui (林明慧), a junior-high school teacher from Taichung who was taking part in a peaceful demonstration that briefly occupied the Executive Yuan compound from the evening of March 23 to the early morning of March 24 last year, was beaten and injured by police officers when they forcefully evicted the protesters.
Lin filed a lawsuit against the National Police Agency, the Executive Yuan, the Taipei City Police Department and the Taipei City Government, accusing the police of using excessive force when removing unarmed, peaceful demonstrators.
The court on Friday agreed with Lin and ordered the Taipei City Government to pay Lin NT$300,000 in compensation.
This is one of the very rare cases in which the government has been held responsible for disproportionate force used against demonstrators. Even though demonstrators have filed numerous lawsuits against the police, officers are usually acquitted on the grounds that they were following orders from their supervisors, even when the court sometimes agreed that there were flaws in the execution.
After Friday’s ruling, some police officers urged the city government to appeal the decision, saying that otherwise they would not know how to follow orders in the future.
However, giving a second thought to orders handed down by a supervisor might be just the lesson that some officers need.
The police play an important role in law enforcement, but when faced with demonstrators, they seem to focus only on getting them out of the way, instead of observing the law. They have, on occasion, disregarded due process when dispersing demonstrators or dealing with members of the media.
For instance, a group of journalists gathered outside the National Police Agency building once asked to speak to the director-general about a certain issue, but the police refused, with the commander declaring that the journalists were in violation of the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).
When the journalists challenged his statement based on the Police Power Exercise Act (警察職權行使法), the police commander declined to make a written record of the protest, as the law stipulates, saying that he was acting according to the Assembly and Parade Act, but not the Police Power Exercise Act — though all officers should be following the latter law whenever they are on duty.
The journalists did not sue the officers at the time, but even if they did, chances are the officers would have been acquitted. The court might have said there were some flaws in the handling of the case, but they were not serious enough for the officers to be found guilty.
That was not the case this time.
In the written verdict, the judge said that although it was the police officers’ duty to disperse the crowd occupying the Executive Yuan compound, the police used excessive force by beating peaceful demonstrators with batons.
Perhaps next time police officers should remember the lesson and think whether they are taking the right measure when executing orders from above.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS