During a scuffle between lawmakers in the Legislative Yuan’s main chamber, a portrait of Republic of China (ROC) founder Sun Yat-sen (孫中山) was damaged by a cup of water thrown by a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator. According to customary practice, the legislature may ask the KMT for compensation.
The misconduct not only involves compensation under civil law, but also pertains to Article 160 of the Criminal Code, which states that “a person who with purpose to insult the founder the Republic of China, Dr Sun Yat-sen, openly damages, removes, or dishonors his portrait” is subject to imprisonment for not more than one year.
According to Article 160, “a person who with purpose to insult the Republic of China openly damages, removes, or dishonors the emblem of the Republic of China or the flag of the Republic of China shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of not more than nine thousand dollars. A person who with purpose to insult the founder of the Republic of China, Dr Sun Yat-sen, openly damages, removes, or dishonors his portrait shall be subject to the same punishment.”
Since the KMT legislator inflicted damage to the portrait, will the state charge the legislator with one-year imprisonment?
What the legislature should do is to abolish Article 160, which would not only offer a “solution” to the KMT legislator, but would further ensure freedom of speech in Taiwan’s democratic society. In democratic countries, if citizens dishonor the national flag, the nation’s founder or any political emblem to express their discontent, they would not be committing any violation, because they are under the protection of the Constitution to engage in symbolic speech.
According to Interpretation Nos. 445 and 644 of the former Council of Grand Justices, the state should do its best to protect citizens’ right to political speech. In other words, democratic countries should not use the law to restrain citizens’ right to symbolic speech, such as dishonoring the national flag or portrait of the founder.
In the case Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989), the US Supreme Court ruled that flag burning constitutes a form of symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment. In United States v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990), the US Supreme Court struck down the Flag Protection Act of 1989 on First Amendment grounds, reaffirming its ruling in Texas v. Johnson, which invalidated a Texas flag desecration statute.
Taiwan’s Article 160 is apparently outdated, 30 years behind the US. It is high time lawmakers repealed the statute; I am sure the KMT legislator in question would offer their wholehearted support to that motion.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and chairman of the Taiwan Forever Association.
Translated by Rita Wang
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS