Police not above the law
Over the past few months I have witnessed a number of incidents in which police have acted inappropriately toward peaceful protesters. Some of these incidents occurred during the time of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan, but there have been others, both before and after.
In all these cases, people were protesting peacefully. They merely wanted to express their opinions and be heard by the government. They were acting in a reasonable manner and had no intention of causing unnecessary disturbance to the general public.
Taiwan needs to put in place clear mechanisms for investigating police misconduct. Police are responsible for upholding the law, but they should never be above the law. There also needs to be an independent commission established to thoroughly investigate the incidents that happened during Chen’s visit.
I know the police do a difficult job and work very long hours. However, I would like to humbly offer some advice to them.
First, they should make more of an effort to communicate with protesters. Engaging in dialogue and negotiation can resolve the vast majority of conflicts. It also allows both sides to develop greater mutual respect toward each other.
Second, they must at all times respect human rights and the law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and chapter two of the Constitution provide the basic principles on which laws are founded. The laws provide a further framework for these rights. It is the police force’s job to enforce the law.
However, human rights should always be used as the first principle.
DAVID REID
Sindian, Taipei County
Panda Politics
On Tuesday, China gave two pandas to Taipei Zoo as a gesture of peace, unity and friendship in the course of warming cross-strait relations. For the past month, the media and the public have devoted much attention to the pandas. However, beneath China’s seemingly innocuous gift of the pandas lie several interesting points.
Perhaps the naming of the pandas, Tuan Tuan (團團) and Yuan Yuan (圓圓), meaning “reunion” in Chinese when combined together, which invokes the notion of reunification of the two entities on either side of the Taiwan Strait, did not come as much of a surprise. However, China did originally give Taiwan the opportunity to decide the names of the pandas and yet, interestingly, the Taipei City Government and Taipei Zoo director Jason Yeh (葉傑生) renounced the right to choose names that are more tailored to the local culture.
In addition, the date of the arrival of the pandas appears to be well calculated. The pandas will make their first public appearance on the first day of Lunar New Year, which is an important holiday marked by the reunion of the family.
The international press have pointed out the underlying intention of “unification” behind the “panda diplomacy” in its reports, whereas the majority of the Taiwanese press has been caught up in “pandamania.”
The slow but steady erosion of Taiwanese cultural values may not be as far-fetched as we first thought.
THOMAS CHOU
Bali, Taipei County
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS