The arrest of Taipei Society (澄社) member Hsu Shih-jung (徐世榮) during protests against the demolition of houses in Dapu Borough (大埔) in Miaoli County’s Jhunan Township (竹南) last month has led to controversy after controversy.
It was neither the first nor the last time that someone was arrested for shouting slogans while President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was present, nor was it even unexpected, and perhaps Hsu’s arrest received more attention because he is a professor.
However, the fact remains that while Taiwan may have been lavished with praise for its democratization over the past 20 years, what this incident tells us is that, as far as the current legal system is concerned, street protests are still treated as if martial law had never been lifted.
The Police Duties Enforcement Act (警察職權行使法) has been amended to expand the rights of police to supervise street protests and, last year, the Special Service Act (特種勤務條例) was amended to give the national security agencies special service rights. The martial law-like treatment of street protests only adds to these laws.
Not a lot of attention was paid when charges were unable to be brought against the military police, who exceeded their powers, after protesters were injured in demonstrations during the visit by then-Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in 2008. However, with the help of pro bono lawyers, Hsu is now filing charges against top-level police officials and the head of the National Security Bureau rather than directing his charges against low-level police officers.
In addition to highlighting the longstanding mistreatment of street protests by prosecutors, police and national security, this also calls for further consideration of the absurd implications of the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) that currently governs street protests.
In any normal democracy, assembly, demonstrations and the shouting of slogans are the humble means left to disadvantaged groups that want to organize and make their voice heard in society and to put pressure on the government. This is not only about freedom of expression by shouting slogans and freedom of assembly by way of organizing; in a democracy, these actions are also the public’s last resort when they want to protest against the government. This is why constantly charging people with offenses against public safety clearly amounts to applying a martial law mindset to the handling of street protests.
In the same way, if, on one hand, the government is allowed to hold on to the Assembly and Parade Act, a remnant of the Martial Law era, and use it to protect itself or the relationship between it and industry, while on the other hand, it continues to brainwash the public by stressing the need for social order, then everyone will become captive to the government’s omnipresent ideology. We will have to continue to be satisfied with the restricted freedom that comes as a result of the Assembly and Parade Act, whose final goal is to restrict freedom.
Any time something runs counter to public interest or justice and we want to put pressure on the government, we will have to rely on the hope that anyone who initiates a protest will be able to mobilize sufficient numbers of protesters while at the same time being able to meet various unreasonable demands when applying for permission to hold an activity.
When we can no longer wait because public interest has been devastated and justice destroyed, the absurd version of democracy that we are left with will not be what you or I want.
Liu Ching-yi is a professor in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the