The court ruling for compensation to be paid over the March 24, 2014, expulsion of protesters from the Executive Yuan has proved controversial.
Politicians have tried to fan tensions between the police and the public, branding the protesters a violent mob and saying that the expulsions were entirely legal. If that were an accurate characterization of the events that night, why did the court determine that officers had used excessive force? This is especially odd, as securing state compensation in a court case is no easy feat.
Why, then, are many people still asking whether the officers who used physical force have been identified?
The events happened five years ago. The reason they remain so contentious is that the police have yet to produce the “truth” of the expulsions.
Such evidence would include the many video recordings the police have, the decisionmaking process and chronology of events, and the number and causes of injuries sustained by police officers and members of the public. This, coupled with the fact that people are largely in the dark about exactly what happened on the night the police expelled journalists or kept them at bay, has left much room for politicians to distort the facts.
It is hardly surprising that people remain suspicious, as they do not know that the group who broke into the Executive Yuan on that night — and who were not among the plaintiffs — had been taken into custody by 10pm on March 23.
It was not until the early hours of the 24th that the police moved to expel the unarmed and defenseless people peacefully staging a sit-in protest outside the building. It was them who sought compensation from the police.
This group had been engaged in a peaceful protest on Beiping E Road and on a driveway on the Executive Yuan grounds. They were not among those subsequently labeled a “mob.” Many of them had not even entered the grounds.
On the night of the 24th, beyond the reach of media cameras, many out-of-control officers used batons, shields, fists and feet against members of the public unable to fight back, beating them about the head and kicking those who had been thrown to the ground on the lower body, or training high-pressure hoses on their heads.
There is even footage of onlooking officers shouting “kick the [expletive] out of them” in Taiwanese to their colleagues.
The police have the right to legally expel protesters, but that surely does not extend to them beating defenseless members of the public who had themselves not engaged in violent behavior. Otherwise, what would be the difference between how the police act here and how they act in totalitarian China?
The government should arrange for the immediate release of the police video of that night so the truth can be known and the parties can enter into dialogue with a better understanding of what happened. This will prevent unscrupulous politicians from spreading misinformation to stir up social tension, labeling the victims of state-orchestrated violence a “mob” and sullying the judiciary’s name.
It will also allow people to understand that there were also officers on the scene who were simply enforcing the law, and that not all of them are “bad cops.”
Diligent officers and peaceful protesters alike act out of profound patriotism because they cannot bear to see our democracy falter. They deserve to know the truth.
Kuo Hao-jen is a lawyer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS