For civic groups that long hoped for an overhaul of the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), the amendment expected to pass soon is disheartening. It fails to resolve the problems with the law that prompted calls for an amendment in the first place.
From President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) perspective, however, it is the fulfillment of one of his campaign promises. The version of the amendment that is likely to pass — possibly this week — was proposed by the Cabinet.
On Monday, Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said Ma hoped to see the amendment expedited. But if Ma expects to win political currency with his critics through this amendment, he is next in line for disappointment.
Expecting the amendment to pass yesterday, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, the Judicial Reform Foundation and other groups organized a rally outside the legislature. Their message was simple: This version is not what they wanted.
As it turned out, the amendment was postponed and could be put to a vote on Friday. Protesters who had gathered since 8:30am to express their dissatisfaction with the amendment pledged to return.
It was months of intense campaigning by these groups — aided by the concerns of international observers — that necessitated an amendment in the first place. Ignoring the matter is not an option for a government dogged by allegations of undemocratic behavior, ranging from unchecked cross-strait negotiations and suppression of protests during Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit last year to meddling in judicial cases and the media. The government has not been able to dispel concerns that human rights and democracy are eroding.
Yet despite repeated promises from the government and legislators, an amendment has been long in coming — and now that it is on the table, it seems sure to be a washout.
The Cabinet’s amendment does not address complaints that the assembly law allows authorities to put limits on or cancel demonstrations and to bar rallies from certain public locations.
The question is who Ma and the legislators that support this amendment think they will appease — the dozens of academics abroad who have expressed concern about developments here; the participants in last year’s Wild Strawberry protests; the Judicial Reform Foundation and other legal experts; or the international organizations that have trained their eyes on Taiwan in the past few months?
None of these believes that the amendment is anything other than show. Surely, the government must know this.
If the amendment passes on Friday, the Cabinet will be more than ready to consider the matter closed, but discontent with the assembly law is not likely to fade.
As the Judicial Reform Foundation said on Monday when inviting the public to yesterday’s rally, it has taken 21 years, two changes of government and countless demonstrations for legislators to reach the point of amending the assembly law.
If the version that passes is pointless, the foundation and others calling for reform will be left wondering how long Taiwan will have to wait for the next chance to appear — and whether that day will produce better results. But despite their disappointment, they are not likely to back down from their position on this fundamental matter.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS