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
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