Last month a bus-jacking incident took place in Taipei in an attempt to redress a grievance. Excessive media coverage of the event ensured that anyone who did not go to the site to see the action firsthand could still vividly experience the fear and horror of the situation.
We are accustomed to stories of international terrorists, dissidents and disgruntled individuals or groups using hijackings or kidnappings to force authorities to the negotiating table. Then the same thing happens in our own neighborhood -- a modern version of the traditional complaint about unfair bureaucrats.
This time the hostage-takers put the blame for their stand-off with the police on apparently trifling grudges such as an unfair verdict issued by a district prosecutor; their local government deliberately creating problems; and Taipower charging whatever fees it wants. With the broadcast media playing up images of fear, no wonder the general public sighed with disappointment as the situation was safely defused.
Viewing this situation from a wider perspective, we find that the problem of Taiwan's petrifying legal system, the unfair implementation of laws and the authorities' arrogant and uncommunicative ways of decision-making all helped set the stage for this botched attempt to redress grievances.
Of course the Mioli couple had plenty of models to emulate given the legislature's propensity for holding legislation for ransom -- a fine example of blackmail if ever there was one.
The debate over Taiwan's judicial system since the lifting of martial law has focused on two opposites -- the myths of "de-regulation" and "re-regulation." How, in a rapidly changing environment, should the judicial and public authority mechanisms be reformed and invigorated when it comes to balancing special privileges and public interests or the coordination between state and society? These serious problems, which face many post-modern nations, are either downplayed or colored by the conflicting opinions of political parties.
Let's take a look at the grievances for which the Miaoli County couple staged their desperate bid in order to meet with the minister of justice. They were upset over a case in which a district court sentenced the victim and let the perpetrators go. This involves the question of whether or not the legal authorities, apart from handling a large number of other cases, can fulfill the function of communicating with and handling people's complaints.
Their complaint about local government staff deliberately creating problems for people involves the issue of the quality of public servants, the quality of management and the administration of real estate.
Their grievance about the power company charging whatever it likes involves the price setting mechanisms of the system of public authority in the private economy.
It is hard to say if low interaction levels between judicial and administrative authorities, state-owned companies and the general public actually leads people who feel that their interests have been trampled upon to take hostages to force the authorities into a dialogue. But it does point to serious defects in the internal and external functions of public authorities.
Looking at the overall situation, not only are we far from reaching the ideal of the so called welfare state so popular in the 20th century, but we have problems implementing the idea of "protection of authority" that dates back to the Age of Enlightenment.
RSS