News media broadcast video footage of a gang fight in Kaohsiung on Sept. 19 over a dispute between online streamer Lien Chien-yi (連千毅) and gangster Cheng Yu-jen (鄭又仁). The two groups ignored two warning shots fired by police and went on crashing vehicles, smashing a shop and yelling.
This is because there is no such offense as affray in Taiwan. At most, the participants in the September incident will be fined about NT$2,000 for fighting in breach of Article 87 of the Social Order Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法).
The other offenses involved, such as injury and damage, are ones that can only be tried if the victim presses charges, which the two sides in a gang fight would not do. Apart from possession of a firearm, where the police must identify the culprits, everyone else can probably get off scot-free.
Those who are punished might even try to get state compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
Article 206 of Japan’s Penal Code states: “A person who incites the offender in the commission of a crime at the scene of a crime [of lethal or non-lethal injury] shall, even if the person does not directly cause another to suffer injury, be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than 1 year, a fine of not more than ¥100,000 [US$918] or a petty fine.”
Article 208-3 states: “(1) When two or more persons assemble for the purpose of jointly harming the life, body or property of another, any participant of the assembly who has prepared weapons or knows that weapons have been prepared shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than two years or a fine of not more than ¥300,000.”
It continues: “(2) A person who, having prepared weapons or knowing that weapons have been prepared, causes another to assemble, shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than three years.”
These articles are based on the principle that both sides in a fight might be guilty of an offense. Furthermore, these are indictable offenses.
A proposed amendment along similar lines passed its first reading in the Legislative Yuan.
An amended Article 150 of the Criminal Code would in part state: “(1) A person who causes three or more persons to assemble in a public place or one that is accessible to the public with the purpose of employing violence or threats and who actually employs violence or threats, or a person who participates in an affray, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for up to one year, detention or a fine of up to 100,000 yuan. A ringleader or participant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for six months to five years.”
It would also state: “(2) If a person carries weapons or other dangerous items with the intent that they be used in the commission of such an offense, thus causing danger to the public or traffic, his punishment shall be increased by one half. (3) A person who, of his own accord or being restrained by a public official, ceases such activity, shall not be punished. A participant other than the ringleader may have his punishment reduced.”
This is all good except that the part about “purpose” is unnecessary, because purpose exists in the mind. If violence or threats have already been employed, that in itself proves the participants’ purpose.
Punishing both parties to a fight is a necessary condition for maintaining public safety, so hopefully these amendments will be enacted in the current legislative session.
Jeng Shann-yinn is an honorary professor in Kainan University’s law department.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry