Enough has been said about the timing of Taipei City police in dispersing the tail of the Wild Strawberry Student Movement at Liberty Square on Thursday morning — only hours after Human Rights Day ended — so there is no need to dwell on the irony of it all.
What is of more concern here is the obliviousness of the police to their growing image as a partisan agency and the slapdash approach they use in determining when and how to enforce the law.
On Thursday, Zhongzheng First Precinct head Chen Ming-cheng (陳銘政) said that several complaints had been received about the protesters’ presence in the square. The offended parties were not identified, nor were the merits of the complaints canvassed.
Given the large amount of time that Liberty Square and nearby areas saw occupation by pan-blue-camp protesters during the Democratic Progressive Party’s eight years in power — with little incident and even less police intervention — the police account reeks of pretext, and one so risible that commanders must be oblivious to the possible consequences.
It is as if the police could not rely on the law itself and had to call on anonymous discontent to justify the dispersal of peaceful protesters.
Also of concern is the behavior of police in apprehending Tibetan protesters at the same location and, in some cases, taking them to the hills of Neihu District (內湖) — in Taipei City terms, the middle of nowhere — and dumping them there. In some cases the hapless Tibetans did not even have the language skills to ask for directions.
It is not clear what this technique might be called in the National Police Agency officers’ manual, but from a legal standpoint it borders on abduction.
Dumping protesters in remote locations is a practice that must cease forthwith. If not, the police will once again invite scrutiny from international rights observers — not something that they would relish given the thoroughgoing incompetence of senior police in dealing with foreign observers.
While the somewhat exaggerated response in certain newspapers to this incident was predictable — Tibetans claiming Taiwan is more and more like China, and so on — the salient point remains that the government has no deep understanding of what human rights are, what kind of society defends them and the socioeconomic consequences of their decay, let alone the desire to instill in law enforcement authorities heightened procedural respect for criminal suspects and other people with whom they interact.
Week after week, the national and Taipei City governments have privileged theoretical entitlements of residents and bureaucratic expense over the natural right to free speech and assembly. Yet, despite all the bad press here and overseas, no one is learning anything, and senior police seem to be intent on showing that their word is final rather than acting as custodians of order in the face of frequently shaky law.
Most of all, the political mishandling of these harmless protests has been breathtaking. As with Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) comment that the student movement wouldn’t last more than a few days — a precious incentive for the students to continue that was obvious to everyone except the premier — the police actions at Liberty Square are likely to spread distrust between civic associations and the police.
Someone with a semblance of wisdom and authority is going to have to turn to the president, the premier and the mayor of Taipei and say that things cannot continue like this. If taking a hard line with protesters with bona fide grievances is this administration’s idea of governance, it might like to reflect on what could happen if autocratic impulses continue unabated in a time of growing economic hardship.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS