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
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry