The latest pan-blue demonstration on Saturday at Taipei's Chiang Kai-shek Memorial ended in violence, and the pan-blues are planning another large rally on April 10. These demonstrations against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his administration are of continuing concern to those who are affected by instability in the capital.
The issue of whether or not to grant approval for the April 10 protest has also been a thorn in the side of both the central and local governments. Taipei City Government, acting pursuant to the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法), approved the pan-blue camp's application for the April 10 rally, while refusing its application for 16 other demonstrations between April 3 and May 20.
However, the pan-blue supporters at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall on Saturday did not end their rally at the time required, instead swarming to Ketagalan Boulevard, where clashes occurred between the demonstrators and police. In response, the Cabinet called on the city government to revoke the permit that it had issued for the April 10 demonstration.
Despite the fact that the pan-blue camp's calls for rallies are starting to sound like a broken record, the government should not restrict or prohibit requests to organize assemblies, as these are rights enshrined in the Constitution.
These activities also act as positive channels through which people can express their political views and dissatisfaction.
A minority in their number has caused clashes, injuries and inconvenience for residents in the neighborhood, but the situation is not serious enough to justify refusing their applications to hold demonstrations.
The Council of Grand Justices' Interpretation No. 445 lists those kinds of behavior considered to be unconstitutional, such as that for which there is sufficient evidence to prove that the national security has been compromised, or social order or the public interest threatened, or that which may endanger life, limb or freedom or inflict major damage on property.
The interpretation stresses that it is inappropriate to prevent rallies unless special circumstances apply.
It also says that if the agency responsible for approving the rally considers that its potential damage to the social order is based on an assumption rather than on the actual situation -- that is, if the rally does not constitute an immediate and obvious danger -- then refusal to grant the application would constitute undue interference on the part of the government.
According to the law, the government must not refuse the pan-blue camp's application for the April 10 rally.
However, the pan-blues have proved ineffective in controlling their crowds, both by being inflammatory and failing to clean up after themselves.
Therefore, the government should approve the application and make it clear that the pan-blue camp promise to disperse its people at the required time and clean up the location, or else risk having future applications rejected.
This will give an equal amount of consideration to both democracy and the law.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS