As Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben said: “The real problem, the central mystery of politics is not sovereignty, but government; it is not God, but the angel; it is not the king, but ministry; it is not the law, but the police.”
Protests are common in Taiwan and police’s handling of such activities often draws attention. This was the case during the Sunflower movement in 2014, a protest during the opening ceremony of the Taipei Universiade last year, and the arrest of protesters and lawyers during a march in December last year against the amendments to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法), who were forced into police cars and “dropped off” at random locations.
Take for example the “drop-offs.” From a legal perspective, the matter involved police bringing people under control through the use of force, which included restrictions on their personal freedom or actions, and even temporary or preventative deprivation of their freedom.
Even though such an exercise of police power is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, its actual application remains controversial.
Then there are assemblies and parades: The key with these is how to accurately predict how a situation is likely to unfold. Police are required to use their discretion and judgement to decide whether a given situation is dangerous or not.
Simply claiming that protesters might intend to violate the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) is not sufficient reason to legitimize police intervention — even with regards to so-called preventive restriction.
Unless there are clear threatening acts at the scene, a simple march, in itself, is not dangerous.
According to the European Court of Human Rights, if police restrict protesters’ personal freedom first and then disperse them later, they must act on the premise that the dispersion is legal. Thus, the police must give a clear and definite order for dispersion.
However, when people refuse to disperse, the restriction of their personal freedom must be according to the principle of proportionality. Since bringing people under control would violate their human rights, such control must be associated with the prevention of criminal acts, so as to prevent people from committing punishable crimes.
Considering this, police really need to review their use of force of “drop-offs” on Dec. 23.
This is an era of “critical citizens.” Spanish activists shouted “Real democracy now” during street protests and Time magazine named “the protester” its 2011 “Person of the Year.”
As political commentators have said, people no longer indulge in a sense of powerlessness while feeling sorry for themselves. Instead of whining that they cannot change anything, many people are now taking action to vent their anger.
UK economist Peter Jay once said that, like a snake biting its own tail, our democracy has started to swallow itself. In the face of a broken society, people’s search for new democracy and politics has highlighted the importance of protest.
It seems necessary that the police practice proper use of force when handling assemblies and parades, so that they can start to understand and promote true democracy.
Lin Chia-ho is an associate professor at the National Chengchi University’s College of Law.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS