|
|
|
Taiwan Court Criticized for Compensating
2014 Sunflower Protesters |
|
|
After the 2014 Sunflower Movement occupied the Executive Yuan, the police removed the unlawful intruders, some of whom have sued police for state compensation.
(Photo from: United Daily News) |
|
|
Unfair? Taipei City Police Department Ordered To Compensate NTD$1.11 Million To Sunflower Protesters
United Daily News, October 31, 2019
With respect to the blood-shedding removal of Sunflower Student Movement protesters from the Executive Yuan building in 2014, former Taiwan Solidarity Union Legislator Chou Ni-an and 28 other protesters deemed the police had used excessive force in law enforcement and brought lawsuit against the Taipei City Government and the Taipei City Police Department for state compensation. The Taipei District Court ruled October 30 that the police had overstepped the principle of proportionality and caused injuries to the protesters. The court ruled that the Taipei City Police Department should pay former Legislator Chou and 13 others more than USD$1.11 Million (about USD$36,200). The decision can be appealed.
This is the first court decision that orders the police to pay for state compensation in handling protests even though no image of police’s attack on protesters has been found. Entry-level police officers have found the decision is unfair. A head of police station said that the occupation of the Executive Yuan complex was an interference in state affairs, and the dispersal by the police was based on sound grounds. He said that if such dispersal would result in state compensation, then it is possible the passive law enforcement might increase. Senior police officers also questioned that if the Executive Yuan complex or Zhongxiao East Road were occupied now, will the current administration refuse to order the dispersal of the protesters?
The plaintiffs and their attorneys agreed to the court decision and cited the Hong Kong situation as a comparison that the court decision at the present time is “especially meaningful”. The Taipei City Police Department said that it absolutely stood by its police to enforce the law, and it would safeguard the rights of the police officers. The Police Department said it would consult with its lawyers to study whether to file an appeal after it has received the written decision.
The court ruling pointed out that it was an illegal assembly for people to protest inside the prohibited area. When the police dispersed the “peaceful” assembly, they should avoid using forcible measures that could result in chilling effect. The police might order disassembling, compulsory dispersal, or use police gadgets to perform their duties. If soft and persuasive measures were ineffective, then forcible measures had become unavoidable. The police could separate the protesters who were holding hands, they could carry away the protesters who were sitting or lying, but they should not consider the protesters as enemies and vent their anger and revenge by attacking the protesters personally.
The judge ruled that the police should comply with the principle of proportionality in performing their duties. It is expected that frictions, pulls, or shoves might occur during forcible dispersals, but if those actions exceed the principle of proportionality, then they are out of the boundary of performing duties under law, and the state should be held responsible for compensation.
The decision also pointed out that the burden of proof was lowered for the plaintiffs. Whether the police had used excessive force that resulted in injuries to the people can be proved by the statements of the witnesses or medical diagnosis that indicated excessive bodily harm, despite the lack of video footage of police attacks.
The decision further stated that when the police used instruments that resulted in injuries, deaths, or loss of property in violation of law, those actions fell under the provisions of the State Compensation Law that public officials intentionally or negligently have infringed on the rights of people when performing their public duties, so the Taipei City Police Department is responsible for paying state compensation.
Sandy Yu-lan Yeh, a retired professor of Police University, said that this case is a big blow to the morale of the police. She said that the era of passive, non-enforcement of law has come, and that the victims are the people as a whole. She pointed out that the judge has not examined the legality of police actions and the cause and effect of the attacks on the police officials, so the judge was not impartial. Yeh thought that the case showed that it was not worthwhile for the police officers to perform their duties.
During the Sunflower Movement in 2014, the protesters entered the Executive Yuan building and put up posters demanding the withdrawal of the draft agreement on trade-in -services between Taiwan and mainland China. When the police conducted forcible dispersal, bloody conflicts had occurred. Successive lawsuits by the protesters were brought against the government.
From: https://udn.com/news/story/11311/4135763
|
|
|
The Taipei District Court ruled that the Taipei Police Department must compensate protesters who occupied the Executive Yuan, stirring considerable backlash among police officers.
(Photo from: United Daily News) |
|
|
Will The Sunflower Movement Compensation Case Be Appealed? Interior Minister Hsu Kuo-yung So Great At Political Calculation
United Daily News, November 1, 2019
During the Sunflower Student Movement, conflict arose between the police and the people. Former Legislator Chou Ni-An and another 20 plaintiffs demanded state compensation. The Taipei District Court held that the Taipei City Police Bureau shall pay damages of a total of NTD$1.11 million (about USD$36,500) to the 14 plaintiffs.
The court ruling was thunderously booed and jeered by the police in general. And the politicians were doing political calculations. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is seeking to please advocates of Taiwan independence and student protesters, while reluctant to lose police votes in the upcoming presidential election. It is all because a villain and a hero were required in the play, and the Interior Minister Hsu Kuo-yung was playing the hero and the Court the villain. Hsu’s quick move to intentionally impute the responsibility for the Sunflower Student Movement to the former President Ma Ying-jeou cannot be covered up. Hsu’s so-called full support for appealing the court judgement is just lip service.
According to Taipei City Councilor Dai Hsi-chin, 49 protestors including students were injured, while 95 policemen wounded, which is exactly twice as many as those demonstrators. In view of the figures, although the police which is in good formation, have the advantage over the protestors, the number of the injured is twice that of the latter. At least it can be presumed that the police could be beaten in this "civil disobedience" struggle. However, this was not even referred in the court judgment.
Now, student protestors are claiming state compensation. But during that time, the police were injured, which seemed to be written off. The Taipei City Police Commissioner said that he would definitely appeal the court decision, otherwise it would undermine the morale of rank and file police. However, the Taipei City Mayor Ko Wen-je seems to have another scheme, saying that " The answer is not to be or not to be”, "Make haste slowly" or "political issues cannot be solved at court "…etc. To put it bluntly, all are political considerations, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) tended to please the Taiwan independence advocates, students…etc. Naturally, Mayor Ko was no exception. If you explicitly endorsed the appeal by police, you definitely offended others, didn’t you? Ko’s Taiwan People’s Party still has to run for now or president in the future. Of course, he must do his political calculations time and again.
Hsu held a press conference with such high-ranking police officers as the Director-General Chen Ja-chin of the National Police Agency (NPA) in attendance. During the conference, only Hsu harped the same string to the effect that the said judicial decisions should be respected. Yet, the Taipei City Police Bureau was entitled to appeal. He would support the police to appeal. If the court decision impacted the police morale, it was caused by the previous administration of President Ma Ying-jeou.
That President Tsai Ing-wen handpicked Hsu as the minister of the interior is quite politically correct. Hsu proved himself as savvy by first affirming the court decision, and then sustaining the city police station’s entitlement to appeal (but not necessarily encouraged). Just as the Speaker of the New Taipei City said, the court is owned by the ruling DPP, this political party would not be worried about the appeal. Moreover, if the police morale was hit, it was the fault of the former Ma administration rather than the incumbent Tsai administration. In sum, Minister Hsu was so sharp to insulate Tsai from being accused that he is really a role model for the DPP.
Hsu’s political insulation approach was quite simple and straightforward, but it had its logical fallacy. Because the root of the clash between the police and the people was due to a behind-the-scenes maneuver adopted by the then opposition DPP. As a result, the conflict metamorphosed into a highly politically sensitive issue. It was Wang Jin-pyng, former speaker of the Legislative Yuan, who insisted on not using police power to rein in demonstration, who made crowds of protestors more uncompromising and arrogant, which has contributed to the spiral rise of follow-up conflicts. The police cordon line had been repeatedly trampled by political figures as a result. Now Hsu instead pointed his finger at the former Ma administration for its undermining police morale. Hsu also said that the Tsai administration rendered full support to the police. The entire story was indeed an instance of "a thief calling on people to catch a thief", wasn’t it?
According to the police hierarchy, the Ministry of the Interior, the National Police Agency, and the Taipei City Government are the Taipei City Police Department’s upper echelons. Each head has his own political considerations. The NPA is under the supervision of Minister Hsu. It is difficult for the director-general of NPA to show his true political leanings. Head of the Taipei City Police Department was more likely to be under Mayor Ko’s influence. The decision of "whether to appeal" is of its declaratory character. To defend the dignity of law enforcement is our priceless right. In this case, the Taipei City Police Department is the defendant. As the head of the city police department, he is legally permissible to make his own decision whether to appeal or not. What if the head is dictated by political considerations? Naturally, it is another issue.
From: https://udn.com/news/story/7321/4139305
|
|
|
Breaking Free From DPP’s Birdcage Democracy
By Chen Chao-ping
China Times, November 1, 2019
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus rode the roughshod over the legislative session by changing the agenda and sending multiple bills regarding “agents” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to the committee. This action has provoked discontentment from the opposition, including Kuomintang (KMT) caucus stating that they will close the door to further negotiation with the DPP; People First Party (PFP) caucus expressed similar future measures if any further actions are taken by the DPP; and New Power Party (NPP) caucus went as far as saying that the DPP is merely playing fake ball in order to gain votes at the coming presidential election. Even Taiwanese businessmen have criticized the DPP for putting them in very challenging circumstances; scholars also accuse the DPP’s actions as going against the essence of democratic ruling and freedom of speech.
This “agents of the CCP” bill that DPP administration is forcing for procession isn’t merely one single bill. In fact, the bill anchors all laws regarding cross-strait relations. It puts a chain on all related men and events, imposing restrictions on freedom of speech and actions. These restrictions are far more terrifying than the martial law in Taiwan from 1949-1987, the National Security Law in 2013, and criminal law added altogether.
The following are two examples demonstrating the potential impact of the “CCP agents” bill’s potential impact. According the current “Radio and Television Act” and “Satellite Broadcasting Act”, Taiwanese radio and television can legally acquire the franchise of Chinese television programs. Once the “CCP agents” bill passes, any commercial contract between Taiwanese and Chinese businesses in order to broadcast TV series or even report news may become evidence of trespassing against the law.
According to the DPP’s logic, the Publicity Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCPPD) is exactly the headquarter that is “fighting Taiwan through public opinions” and “infiltrating into all aspects of Taiwan”. Therefore, in the opinion of the DPP, is whoever signs a contract with CCPPD deemed an agent of CCP?
As stated in “Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area” and other agreements pertaining to travel and aviation, airline companies can conduct direct flights from China to Taiwan and vice versa and tourists can travel freely as well. Once the “CCP agents” bill passes, it would be a huge blow especially to the Taiwan agencies dealing with Chinese airline companies as well as Taiwan agencies that deal with travel and tourism in China. Any imprudent move may cause these businesses to become scapegoats under this bill.
One may ask, why is there a need to revise the “CCP agents” bill? Minister Chen Ming-tong of the Mainland Affairs Council stated that CCP is conducting an overall war against Taiwan through public opinions, mind games, law reinforcement and even the general perception of Taiwan’s identity. Furthermore, President Tsai stated that China’s infiltration in all aspects of Taiwan has become increasingly severe and requires legal mechanisms to deal with. The DPP seems to have forgotten their own constant proclamation that Taiwan is a mature democratic country. If Taiwan was the case, couldn’t the people decipher China’s tricks leading to unification and their infiltration into Taiwan? Why would DPP decide to forsake democracy and practice repressive totalitarianism by limiting freedom? Does the DPP not believe in the people’s own judgement or could it be that they do not have confidence in themselves?
The fact that the DPP administration insists on amending the “CCP agents” bill reveals its fears towards China and their desire to return to the “Three-Noes Policy” which states “no contact, no compromise and no negotiations” with the Chinese Communists. In reality, even the “1992 Consensus” or “One China” Consensus isn’t recognized anymore. Hence, why doesn’t the DPP government simply announce the elimination of the 23 agreements signed with China and completely “disconnect from China”? If Taiwan and China were to not have any contact nor compromise, clearly there wouldn’t be any negotiations among the two governments and certainly no need to waste money and resources on amending the “CCP agents” bill.
Often when the DPP is left in a hopeless situation facing China, DPP’s concept of freedom and democracy has been revealed to be a “birdcage democracy”. Evidence of this “birdcage democracy” can be seen from DPP’s support of Hong Kong’s Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill movement and the Chen Tong-Jian incident, to DPP’s current insistence in amending the National Security Act[1]. The latest proof of this is the recent push for the “CCP agents” bill.
The DPP has constructed a birdcage democracy for Taiwan which consists of a big and a small cage. The big cage, which encloses the small cage, is for the DPP’s use only; whereas the small cage is used to confine any other party or people. Take for instance, Hsu Kuo-yung, Minister of the Interior of Taiwan, can secretly meet with Guan Hao Ming, a member of the Chinese People’s Consultative Conference. However, when Han Kuo-yu, Kaohsiung mayor and KMT presidential candidate, went to the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong, he was considered a traitor from the DPP’s perspective. It appears that the DPP has the control of how big or small these cages are and the amending of the “CCP agents” bill would further limit the small cage and enlarge the big cage for their own use.
Consequently, how should we break free from this birdcage democracy that the DPP has locked Taiwan in? Simply blocking the “CCP agents” bill is not enough. The DPP has to be removed from power. Rephrasing a quote from the late President Reagan, we ought to leave the DPP “on the ash heap of history.”
[1] Another amendment of the National Security Act to further restrict freedom of person, media and speech.
From:https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20191101000807-260109?chdtv
|
|
|
October 28: The Language Flagship program officially funded by the United States established a Taiwan Center at National Taiwan University. This is the first time that the American program has set up an overseas Chinese language center in Taiwan, symbolizing a milestone in cultural cooperation between Taiwan and the United States. On the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, the establishment of the Flagship Taiwan Center shows a steady improvement in U.S.-Taiwan relations.
October 30: The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus modified the agenda in the Legislative Yuan, sending the so-called “Chinese Communist Party (CCP) agents” bill past committee review. The Kuomintang (KMT) caucus criticized the DPP’s “CCP agents” amendment bill as violating freedom speech and press and harming the interests of Taiwanese businessmen and students in mainland China, in the name of national security. The bill is also contrary to the founding principles of the DPP. If the Tsai administration insists on reversing democracy and force the amendment bill during this session in view of the upcoming election, the KMT caucus will close the current cross-partisan negotiation mechanism as a counter-measure.
October 31: The United States Senate unanimously passed the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act of 2019 (referred to as the “Taipei Act”) on October 29. The Taipei Act requires the executive branch to take action to strengthen Taiwan’s diplomatic relations and unofficial relations in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world, support Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, and promote free trade negotiations between Taiwan and the United States. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives also passed a similar version of the Taipei Act on October 30. Once the bill passes both houses of Congress, a uniform version will be sent to the president for signature.
November 1: President Tsai Ing-wen announced in Hualien that the Suhua Highway Improvement Project will be open on January 5 next year. The Transportation Ministry also reported to the Executive Yuan that the improvement project will cost NTD$36 billion (about USD$1.18 billion). In the second half of 2019, additional transportation costs have reached as high as NTD$287.3 billion (about USD$9.4 billion). Transportation experts have criticized the Tsai administration for wasting public funds for its own benefit in the upcoming election.
November 2: Former Vice President Annette Lu and her running mate Peng Pai-hsien announced their withdrawal from the 2020 presidential election. Lu criticized the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act as unconstitutional, the Central Election Commission for making things difficult, as well as the close links between political interest and media. These factors prevented her from reaching the threshold of 280,384 petitions in the designated 45-day period. None of the other seven groups of candidates met the threshold. The presidential election is scheduled to be held on January 11, 2020.
|
|
|
Taiwan Weekly is a newsletter released every week by Fair Winds Foundation, Taipei Forum, and Association of Foreign Relations that provides coverage and perspectives into the latest developments in Taiwan.
The conclusions and recommendations of any Taiwan Weekly article are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the institutions that publish the newsletter.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 | | |
|  |
|
|
|
|
