When Taipei City police were accused last week of hindering a lawsuit over their response to protests in November, it wasn’t the first indication that there would be difficulties in substantiating police abuse of powers. Still, more than six months after Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan — and the demonstrations that the visit sparked — some of the complaints of protesters have reached court.
Taipei police have been accused of using excessive force against demonstrators and violating their freedom of expression during Chen’s visit.
Following that visit, the Judicial Reform Foundation helped members of the public with complaints against the police to take action, filing several lawsuits on their behalf. More lawsuits have been filed independently. Last week, three criminal cases opened at the Taipei District Court concerning the allegations against the police.
On Wednesday, the foundation expressed concern that the Taipei City Police Department might be shielding officers from court scrutiny. In a case concerning the police force’s response to protests outside the Grand Formosa Regent on Nov. 5, the department told the Taipei District Court it could not identify officers shown in photographs taken during the clash.
The group said that police departments elsewhere in the country had cooperated in similar lawsuits, identifying officers in photographs that had been provided to the court.
The question is whether political pressure or pressure within the police force to protect colleagues is hindering the judicial process. In an unexpected twist, after the foundation held a press conference with Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Huang Sue-ying (黃淑英), the Taipei Police Department said that it would identify the officers in the photographs.
If the threat of bad publicity is needed to ensure the cooperation of police departments, then there is every reason for concern.
After last week’s complaint by the foundation and the police department’s apparent turnaround on identifying the officers, it should be clear that any obstructions that hamper proceedings will attract attention and be acted on.
However, activists worry that it is easier for the police to seek redress in cases of clashes between officers and protesters. Significantly, the perception that taking legal action against police is exceedingly difficult has been a primary complaint of civic groups who oppose a Cabinet-proposed amendment to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法). The amendment would allow police to stop protests that they deem to be a threat to public security — but opponents say there is potential for abuse.
In April, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office said it would not indict former Beitou Precinct chief Lee Han-ching (李漢卿) — now the head of Shilin Precinct — who was in charge during an incident at Sunrise Records on Nov. 4 in which the store was ordered closed for reasons that were possibly outside police authority. The decision not to send the case to court drew criticism from civic groups and may lend credence to their concerns.
Limits on police power are an integral part of a democracy. For this reason, the three trials now in motion will be a gauge of police accountability. Fair and unobstructed proceedings will be necessary to dispel reasonable doubts on the safety of the verdicts.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS