Political pundit and former Taiwan People’s Party member Grace Woo (吳靜怡) on Saturday last week attended a civic group event in Taipei’s Xinyi District (信義) to promote the recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯). From the moment Woo left the venue, a pair of police officers began to trail her along the road.
Have we made a return to the martial law era? Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) needs to provide a clear and full response to this incident.
When asked about this matter, Chiang said: “My position has always and will continue to be to support the police, and to enforce laws within their proper scope, in accordance with the law.”
However, were the police officers acting according to the law? Article 4 of the Police Power Exercise Act (警察職權行使法) states: “When exercising their authority the police shall wear their uniforms or present their credentials that show their identity and they shall state their intent.”
Nowhere in Woo’s publicly shared video clip does it show that the plainclothes officers presented any credentials to prove their identity, nor did they give Woo a reason for why they were exercising their authority.
Article 9 of the act states: “When the police have enough facts to believe that the actions of people who participate in assemblies, parades or other public events may endanger public safety or order, they may collect at the scene information about the participants in the event by videotape, recording or other technology tools.”
The event that Woo was granted a permit for was a lawful gathering of the public to “hand out Lunar New Year couplets and to spread democratic ideas.”
What reason was there to believe Woo had committed an unlawful act, or harmed public safety or order? Even if her participation in a civic event had contravened any law, the police should have collected information about all the participants at the event, and not trailed and surveilled her when she departed.
Article 11 of the act states that police “may observe people in the following activities through visual inspection or technology tools ... collect data over the reasonably expected behaviors or life activities irrelevant to personal privacy or secrecy within a specified period of time that is deemed necessary and with the prior written approval of a police department chief in order to prevent crimes” committed by “people who are believed on the basis of sufficient facts to be likely to commit a crime that is punishable by at least five years’ imprisonment” and those “who are believed on the basis of sufficient facts to be likely involved in professional, habitual, syndicated, or organized crimes.”
However, Woo’s participation in a civic event does not meet the conditions of “suspicion of having committed a crime,” showing that the police contravened the law.
Essentially, the police used the excuse of “guaranteeing personal safety” to carry out unlawful surveillance. It is as if we have been transported back in time to the martial law era. This is an abuse and misuse of police authority, and Chiang ought to come out and provide an honest and clear explanation to dispel any doubts.
Yeh Yu-cheng is a secretary at the Pingtung County Government Public Health Bureau.
Translated by Tim Smith
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS