The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) asked the Taipei City Police Department to investigate an online rumor that alleged the general manager of the Formosa Fun Coast (八仙海岸) water park in New Taipei City is a financial supporter of the party.
The police fined the individual behind the message NT$30,000 for violating Item 5 of Article 63 of the Social Order Maintenance Act (SOMA, 社會秩序維護法), which forbids circulating rumors that could unnerve the public.
When news of the fine appeared in newspapers, it elicited a number of reactions. Some questioned whether the content of the message actually amounted to a rumor and whether it was sufficient to undermine public order and peace. Others said the fine was an incursion on freedom of expression. However, what stood out was the virtual absence of challenges to the appropriateness of Article 63 itself.
The way SOMA interferes with the rights of Taiwanese is totally out of touch with human rights in a modern society. Article 63 also allows, in addition to the maximum fine of NT$30,000, for detention of “not more than three days” as an option for a presiding judge.
Although this does require a judge’s ruling, it still means that an individual’s freedom can be taken from them for as long as three days, and it is clearly debatable whether this regulation conforms to the principle of proportionality.
This is especially true since Item 5 of Article 63 sprang almost fully formed from a Martial Law era piece of legislation aimed at maintaining public order and protecting peace — the now-abolished Act Governing the Punishment of Police Offenses (違警罰法) — specifically Clause 1 of Article 54 of that act. After the Council of Grand Justices proclaimed that the legal provisions within the abolished act regarding fines and detention were unconstitutional, the text reappeared in the newly promulgated SOMA with precious few amendments, save for the reduction of the maximum period of detention from seven days to three and the fact that the detention was now put at the discretion of a court.
Nevertheless, the underlying intention behind the legislation — to control society through the police and with absolutely no oversight — remains enshrined within the text of SOMA. In fact, as a result of the council’s constitutional interpretation, many of the regulations within SOMA have now received a high degree of approval. This retrogressive move is not the kind of legislation wanted in a nation that observes human rights.
The kind of social order envisioned in SOMA simply does not conform to the aspirations of transitional justice. Three decades after the end of the Martial Law era, its stipulations, and the punishments and processes that they codify, are thoroughly detrimental to reflection on what is just.
Not only should the nation consider abolishing stipulations of this type, it should also conduct a complete revision of the act, to set Taiwan back on the right path.
Hsu Heng-da is an associate professor at the College of Law at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past