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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS