An incident in which a personal trainer allegedly attacked police officers in a Taoyuan convenience store before being subdued and allegedly struck 12 times by an officer has sparked discussions about police brutality, and whether the officer involved should be reprimanded.
On Saturday last week, a muscular, shirtless man surnamed Chu (朱) entered a convenience store in Jhongli District (中壢) and allegedly began acting erratically, talking to himself and knocking over product displays. Following up on a call from a store clerk, two police officers arrived and asked the man to leave.
Chu became enraged and allegedly struck both officers in the face and neck, causing a mild concussion to one and bruises on the other. Videos of the altercation posted online showed Chu squatting, flexing his muscles and roaring, prompting some Chinese-language media to dub him the “Taiwanese Hulk.”
One video showed that while Chu was sitting outside the store after he was pepper sprayed, an officer hit him with a baton 12 times, causing Chu to curl up on the ground. The man appeared to be wailing, without fighting back, and blood could be seen on his face and chest when he was handcuffed by the other officer.
Taoyuan Police Department’s Jhongli Precinct said that as the officer, surnamed Wang (王), allegedly lost control of his emotions and used “excessive force,” he was given two demerits and would be charged with assault.
Wang’s actions triggered widespread discussion over whether he was enforcing the law and protecting himself or was using excessive force. Some questioned whether demerits and criminal charges would discourage police from doing their jobs.
A person who said they were a police officer from another Jhongli Precinct station on Wednesday wrote on Facebook that they would launch a “passive public security” campaign from Thursday next week to Sunday. During the campaign, officers would not investigate crimes, give traffic tickets or complete tasks assigned by the precinct to show their disappointment over the police department’s response to Wang.
Based on the Criminal Code, Chu used threats or violence against public officials performing their duties, and under the Police Power Exercise Act (警察職權行使法), officers are permitted to bring a person under control using handcuffs or other approved physical restraining devices, such as while facing violent acts or fighting that could result in injury or other risks that cannot be prevented without restraint.
If the officers had used their batons appropriately to subdue Chu during the assault, the law might protect Wang’s actions, but Wang allegedly beat Chu after he had been subdued, while the other officer stood by and watched. Those actions could be illegal “retaliation” and “assault” on a civilian, who was no longer endangering them or others, nor resisting restraint or detention.
It is understandable for people to empathize with frontline police officers and the risks they frequently encounter. However, they are law enforcers who are given powers they can exercise within the law, and should minimize infringements upon people’s rights. They should use these powers to safeguard citizens’ rights, and maintain public order and social security. They are not the enforcers of punishment.
While self-defense is vital for police, police departments should enhance human rights aspects of law enforcement education, so that officers act in accordance with the law, to protect themselves and others, which can also foster public trust and confidence in the police, gaining them the respect and support they need to perform their duties.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS