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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath