A teacher who was the victim of police brutality during last year’s Sunflower movement has been awarded NT$300,000 in compensation by the Taipei District Court. Although this might be the first ruling of its kind in Taiwan, hopefully it will not be the last time police officers are held accountable for exorbitant actions.
Lin Ming-hui (林明慧), a junior-high school teacher from Taichung who was taking part in a peaceful demonstration that briefly occupied the Executive Yuan compound from the evening of March 23 to the early morning of March 24 last year, was beaten and injured by police officers when they forcefully evicted the protesters.
Lin filed a lawsuit against the National Police Agency, the Executive Yuan, the Taipei City Police Department and the Taipei City Government, accusing the police of using excessive force when removing unarmed, peaceful demonstrators.
The court on Friday agreed with Lin and ordered the Taipei City Government to pay Lin NT$300,000 in compensation.
This is one of the very rare cases in which the government has been held responsible for disproportionate force used against demonstrators. Even though demonstrators have filed numerous lawsuits against the police, officers are usually acquitted on the grounds that they were following orders from their supervisors, even when the court sometimes agreed that there were flaws in the execution.
After Friday’s ruling, some police officers urged the city government to appeal the decision, saying that otherwise they would not know how to follow orders in the future.
However, giving a second thought to orders handed down by a supervisor might be just the lesson that some officers need.
The police play an important role in law enforcement, but when faced with demonstrators, they seem to focus only on getting them out of the way, instead of observing the law. They have, on occasion, disregarded due process when dispersing demonstrators or dealing with members of the media.
For instance, a group of journalists gathered outside the National Police Agency building once asked to speak to the director-general about a certain issue, but the police refused, with the commander declaring that the journalists were in violation of the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).
When the journalists challenged his statement based on the Police Power Exercise Act (警察職權行使法), the police commander declined to make a written record of the protest, as the law stipulates, saying that he was acting according to the Assembly and Parade Act, but not the Police Power Exercise Act — though all officers should be following the latter law whenever they are on duty.
The journalists did not sue the officers at the time, but even if they did, chances are the officers would have been acquitted. The court might have said there were some flaws in the handling of the case, but they were not serious enough for the officers to be found guilty.
That was not the case this time.
In the written verdict, the judge said that although it was the police officers’ duty to disperse the crowd occupying the Executive Yuan compound, the police used excessive force by beating peaceful demonstrators with batons.
Perhaps next time police officers should remember the lesson and think whether they are taking the right measure when executing orders from above.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Last week, Nvidia chief executive officer Jensen Huang (黃仁勳) unveiled the location of Nvidia’s new Taipei headquarters and announced plans to build the world’s first large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) supercomputer in Taiwan. In Taipei, Huang’s announcement was welcomed as a milestone for Taiwan’s tech industry. However, beneath the excitement lies a significant question: Can Taiwan’s electricity infrastructure, especially its renewable energy supply, keep up with growing demand from AI chipmaking? Despite its leadership in digital hardware, Taiwan lags behind in renewable energy adoption. Moreover, the electricity grid is already experiencing supply shortages. As Taiwan’s role in AI manufacturing expands, it is critical that
RSS