The judiciary has often been criticized for not being politically color blind, with a number of indictments and rulings handed out by prosecutors and courts being perceived by the public as involving double standards.
Following an outpouring of public indignation last week over the sentencing of former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世), which prompted heated discussion online with many netizens suggesting that possessing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) membership offers better protection than any other lucky charm — another case late last week also stirred up controversy.
On Saturday, 72-year-old Peter Wang (王獻極) and 58-year-old Lai Fang-cheng (賴芳徵) were indicted by the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office on charges of violating the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) for allegedly throwing objects at President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) during his speech at the Jingmei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park late last year.
In their defense, Wang said his act of hurling a shoe at Ma was an act that should be protected under the right to freedom of speech, while Lai claimed that the papers he threw into the air were not directed at the president but at the event’s organizers.
Anyone guilty of a malicious action intended to cause bodily harm should rightfully be held accountable in accordance with the law. However, politicians being heckled by members of the public is not an uncommon sight in a democracy. Many may well recall the shoe-throwing faced by then-US president George W. Bush in December 2008 at a news conference in Baghdad, Iraq. So long as protesters harbor no intent to harm, government officials should be more open and receptive to public criticism and outrage, rather than automatically resorting to legal means that, in most cases — such as that of Wang and Lai — creates further public resentment and sows discord between the government and the public.
Ma’s predecessor, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), once said that people protesting and heckling politicians is a sign of a healthy democracy and even Ma previously said that “a head of state being heckled is not a big deal in a democratic society; there is no need to regard it as losing face.”
Many may recall how Ma, during his first presidential campaign in 2008, devoted a segment of his campaign platform to human rights, pledging to amend the Assembly and Parade Act and other laws if elected.
“There is a need to review the Assembly and Parade Act, the Civil Associations Act (人民團體法) and related laws so they can be updated to reflect the passage of time and be a positive force that propels society forward,” Ma said at the time.
Seven years have passed since Ma uttered those words and, in view of the indictment of Wang and Lai, it appears that the government still has lots to do to realize this promise.
The indictment also brought to mind the ruling handed down by the Taiwan High Court on April 8, 2010, finding Shih Ming-te (施明德) and 15 others responsible for leading red-clad protesters in a rally to oust Chen in late 2006 not guilty of violating the Assembly and Parade Act on the grounds that despite calls from police to end the rally, it was unlikely that the thousands of protesters participating could have dispersed in the amount of time allocated.
It seems paradoxical that those who led a large-scale illegal protest against the government were acquitted of violating the Assembly and Parade Act, while two elderly people who allegedly lobbed small objects at Ma were deemed guilty by Taipei prosecutors of violating the same law.
These different interpretations of the law reinforce not only the public’s perception that the judiciary applies double standards to those from the pan-blue and pan-green camps, but also demonstrates that the outdated law is itself riddled with problems.
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