June 25 this year was a historic day for Taiwan. Not because China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) was in Taiwan to meet with his counterpart, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦), beginning what they called an “important step” toward building government-to-government contact and normalizing communication channels to deal with cross-strait issues, but because it marked yet another dark day in Taiwan’s history of democracy, in which human rights — a key asset of Taiwan — were trampled on.
Two rooms booked by rights activist and attorney Lai Chung-chiang (賴中強) on Tuesday at the Novotel Hotel were barged into by a group of “unidentified people” on Wednesday morning who demanded that people in the room leave the hotel before Zhang was to meet Wang later that day at the hotel. Since the hotel staff and the police failed to remove them from the rooms before Zhang’s arrival, more than a dozen police officers stood guard outside the rooms, prohibiting those inside from leaving. According to Lai, he and six other members of Democracy Tautin were merely planning to hang protest banners from the windows of their hotel rooms.
The obstruction by the police of the group’s freedom of movement and expression are another negative mark chalked up for the President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s human rights record.
Wednesday’s raid is reminiscent of the incident six years ago during then-Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) first visit to Taiwan in 2008. Police broke into Grand Hotel rooms without cause or warrant after a group of Democratic Progressive Party Taichung City councilors exercised their freedom of speech by unfurling banners from the balcony. As law enforcement personnel involved in that incident to this day have not been held responsible for these violations of human rights, it should come as no surprise that history repeated itself on Wednesday.
The Novotel Hotel, in its defense, said it called police in accordance with the Regulations for the Administration of Hotel Enterprises (旅館業管理規則), which stipulate that hotels should report information on lodgers to the local police department daily and report any “forcible taking of lodging without presenting proper identification documentation.”
However, as the Novotel Hotel is a tourist hotel, it is arguable whether the Regulations for the Administration of Tourism Hotel Enterprises (觀光業旅館管理規則) should be applied instead. While the Regulations for the Administration of Tourism Hotel Enterprises do require hotels to report information on guests to the local police department daily, there is no statute allowing it to call police for what it claimed was “forcible taking of lodging without presenting proper identification documentation.”
In Wang’s welcoming remarks on Wednesday, he said he hoped Zhang could experience Taiwan’s energetic and diverse society during his stay and he urged Zhang to “listen to Taiwanese people.” How is Zhang to experience first-hand what freedom of expression really means and hear Taiwanese voices when the Ma administration forces Taiwanese out of Zhang’s sight?
While it is normal for Taiwan, the host country, to try to ensure a guest’s safety, such arrangements should not come at the expense of having the public’s right to freedom of expression taken away, freedom of mobility usurped and people being forcibly dragged away from locations where Zhang is present.
Taiwan is a democracy where demonstrations are frequent and people should be free to express themselves within reasonable parameters.
Sadly it seems that whenever high-ranking Chinese officials grace Taiwan with their presence, Taiwan’s democratic facade crumbles. If anything, Wednesday’s incident serves again to remind the public that the regression of democracy under Ma’s leadership reflects traits born in the Martial Law era.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS