The legislature is expected to vote soon on amending the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法). The version of the amendment proposed by the Cabinet would require organizers to report the details of rallies and demonstrations to police. There has been much discussion of the problems with this. I would like to raise the question of whether Taiwan is a police state.
Article 11 of the amendment would grant competent authorities the power to prohibit, restrict or change the planned route of a rally or protest before it starts in three circumstances.
The first of these is extremely ambiguous. The clause applies if there is reason to believe that a gathering poses a clear, actual threat to national security, social order or public interest.
Although the draft uses words like “immediate” and “clear,” the phrase “threat to national security, social order or public interest” is abstract. Who decides what constitutes a threat? The amendment would accord this power to the police departments and precincts where an assembly or parade is scheduled.
But what if the police reach a decision unacceptable to the group organizing the demonstration? The draft amendment does not address this scenario.
Turning to an administrative court would seem to be the only recourse of action. Two scenarios are possible. The first would involve the protest organizers filing for a provisional disposition at an administrative court. The second would be to proceed with the rally in spite of the police’s decision so as not to miss the right timing for the event and to demonstrate that the police were mistaken in their concern. If police pressed charges, the two parties would meet in court.
These options are not a problem for civic groups with sufficient resources, but would still require time and money, as well as certain risks. But would civic groups with limited resources be able to assert their right to freedom of assembly as guaranteed in the Constitution and international conventions?
Unfortunately, this would be for the police to decide. Yet freedom of assembly is so fundamental that we must ask: If the freedom to exercise this right is granted or denied by the police, is Taiwan a police state?
What constitutes a police state is determined by many small factors, including whether marginalized groups with the greatest need to exercise their rights are discriminated against.
The Cabinet’s version of the amendment requires further review. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has praised the proposal and there is speculation that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will call on its caucus to push the amendment through. If this happens without further discussion and revision, there is a risk that the goal of amending this act will not be realized.
Above all, this version of the amendment runs counter to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recently ratified by the legislature.
Peter Huang is chairman of Amnesty International Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
RSS