As Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben said: “The real problem, the central mystery of politics is not sovereignty, but government; it is not God, but the angel; it is not the king, but ministry; it is not the law, but the police.”
Protests are common in Taiwan and police’s handling of such activities often draws attention. This was the case during the Sunflower movement in 2014, a protest during the opening ceremony of the Taipei Universiade last year, and the arrest of protesters and lawyers during a march in December last year against the amendments to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法), who were forced into police cars and “dropped off” at random locations.
Take for example the “drop-offs.” From a legal perspective, the matter involved police bringing people under control through the use of force, which included restrictions on their personal freedom or actions, and even temporary or preventative deprivation of their freedom.
Even though such an exercise of police power is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, its actual application remains controversial.
Then there are assemblies and parades: The key with these is how to accurately predict how a situation is likely to unfold. Police are required to use their discretion and judgement to decide whether a given situation is dangerous or not.
Simply claiming that protesters might intend to violate the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) is not sufficient reason to legitimize police intervention — even with regards to so-called preventive restriction.
Unless there are clear threatening acts at the scene, a simple march, in itself, is not dangerous.
According to the European Court of Human Rights, if police restrict protesters’ personal freedom first and then disperse them later, they must act on the premise that the dispersion is legal. Thus, the police must give a clear and definite order for dispersion.
However, when people refuse to disperse, the restriction of their personal freedom must be according to the principle of proportionality. Since bringing people under control would violate their human rights, such control must be associated with the prevention of criminal acts, so as to prevent people from committing punishable crimes.
Considering this, police really need to review their use of force of “drop-offs” on Dec. 23.
This is an era of “critical citizens.” Spanish activists shouted “Real democracy now” during street protests and Time magazine named “the protester” its 2011 “Person of the Year.”
As political commentators have said, people no longer indulge in a sense of powerlessness while feeling sorry for themselves. Instead of whining that they cannot change anything, many people are now taking action to vent their anger.
UK economist Peter Jay once said that, like a snake biting its own tail, our democracy has started to swallow itself. In the face of a broken society, people’s search for new democracy and politics has highlighted the importance of protest.
It seems necessary that the police practice proper use of force when handling assemblies and parades, so that they can start to understand and promote true democracy.
Lin Chia-ho is an associate professor at the National Chengchi University’s College of Law.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS