Lawmakers divided over limits to freedom of speech

Though agreeing on the need to address ethnic divisions, government officials and scholars yesterday expressed reservations about efforts to punish people for making discriminatory remarks against individual ethnic groups.

Lawmakers from across party lines have introduced a bill that would allow the government to jail violators for up to three years for such offenses, as well as impose fines of up to NT$3 million.

But attendees at a public hearing on the issue warned that the legislation would encroach on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution and increase mistrust between different groups.

"It is unrealistic to prohibit people from making speeches that may disrupt social harmony," the Judicial Yuan said in a position paper. "The endeavor, contrary to its good intention, may serve to antagonize different groups. Existing rules governing public speeches and assembly suffice."

The proposed change to the Criminal Code would subject people found guilty of openly insulting any ethnic or social group in any fashion to one year in jail and/or a fine of NT$100,000.

For government officials found guilty of the same offense, the bill suggests doubling the jail term to two years, in addition to a fine of NT$1 million. It also seeks to impose three-years' imprisonment as well as a fine of NT$3 million on leaders of public rallies whose remarks may incite violence.

A fracas erupted in front of Kaohsiung City Hall on April 19, as over 500 angry resident mainlanders and their supporters protested against a local official who blamed the influx of mainland immigrants for the city's flooding problems.

The next day, a tearful Wu Meng-te (吳孟德), former director of the city's Bureau of Public Works, apologized for his "slip of the tongue." Bowing to public pressure, he resigned days later.

Michael Chang (張茂桂), a social scientist at Academia Sinica, said he found it necessary to address ethnic conflicts but raised doubts about the bill. Noting that ethnic feuds in Taiwan have much to do with ingrained social injustice, Chang painted it as reasonable for the legislature to deny people the liberty to voice their grievances.

"It would be odd for society to condone the oppressor but prosecute the oppressed," Chang said, citing the victims of the White Terror era as an example.

"Their resentment against resident mainlanders is understandable. It is more advisable for the government to take steps to redress past wrongs."

Last year, Chin Heng-wei (金恆煒), editor-in-chief of Contemporary magazine, was greeted with broken eggs outside his apartment in Taipei. He also found an anonymous letter in his mailbox calling him a traitor and threatening the use of violence.

Chin, a resident mainlander who supports Taiwan independence, has drawn ire from the pro-unification camp. Chang said he frowned on the attack but added that any attempt to penalize the offense would be seen as a political means to restrain those who hold similar political beliefs.

Tzing Tzung-li (靳宗立), who teaches law at Fu Jen Catholic University, expressed similar misgivings but for different reasons.

He said the legislation fails to clearly define what constitutes an offensive expression.

"Should we also seek to outlaw discriminatory expressions against the poor, the physically challenged or homosexuals?" he asked. "It is better to think twice if we don't have an answer to the question."