[Taipei Times] Taiwan' s Dreyfus Affair

(Read the Full Text)
I have seen messages on pro-Taiwan discussion boards calling for things like revolution, civil war, and so on, but as an Irishman (whose country has gone through all this before), I don’t agree.

I do believe that the Taiwanese can start their rebellion against the KMT dictatorship with a peaceful Gandhi-style campaign. The campaign would include extremely noisy protests and demonstrations, strikes (especially in companies owned by the KMT or pro-KMT business-folks), boycotts (like postal workers refusing to handle mail directed to the government or KMT offices, dock workers refusing to handle ships coming from or bound for China), blockades, occupations, refusals to pay taxes or fines and many more acts of civil disobedience. The list is endless.

I know that in Taiwan there is not the same militant and rebellious mentality as, say, in Greece, but for the sake of Taiwan’s future, all Taiwanese who care one iota about their country’s future had better learn from the Wild Strawberries, and fairly quickly.

ALAN MULCANY

Swords, County Dublin, Ireland

[Taipei Times] Police not above the law

Over the past few months I have witnessed a number of incidents in which police have acted inappropriately toward peaceful protesters. Some of these incidents occurred during the time of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan, but there have been others, both before and after.
In all these cases, people were protesting peacefully. They merely wanted to express their opinions and be heard by the government. They were acting in a reasonable manner and had no intention of causing unnecessary disturbance to the general public.(Full Text)

[Open letter] from Tibetan immigrant refugees in Taiwan

Respected ROC government and kind people
who care about the human rights of Tibetans,

With due respect, we are here to request and appeal for your urgent help. Here about 110 Tibetan illegal immigrant refugees under a very bad situation, We have nothing to do at this moment and only seek your help to refuge in Taiwan.

It is very clear to all over the world that Tibet is under China and Tibetans ae facing very big problems in and outside Tibet. Especially inside Tibet, we don't have human right, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and there is no human value for Tibetans. So at this situation, Tibetans are force to flue to nearby countries such as India, Nepal and Bhutan for better life and better education for coming generations. Even in those countries, we are facing basic problems to survive. So finally we bought Indian and Nepalese fake passport and legally enter this beautiful island for better life. We heard that Taiwan is democratic state, have human respect, human right, freedom of religion and land of equality to all cast and
tribes. But now we are in Taiwan and facing very big problem of survival. We never aspect such thing will happen in Taiwan.

We already appealed many applications to your presidential office and other related your department. Even on 12th Aug 2008, we all refugees came to your presidential office for help and even to ministry of issue. But till now your government didn't find any solution for our issue. So we are here again today for your kind help. We only seeking refugee asylum in Taiwan. We don't have country and we don't have
place to go back. Today thousands of Tibetans are all around the world
as refugees.

So last but not the least, please…please help us to give certain identification to stay legally in Taiwan. We hope that you will take this a serious matter.


With best regards
Tibetan immigrant refugees in Taiwan
====
The original complete letter:

滯台西藏難胞請願書

致關心西藏人權的台灣中華民國政府和社會善心人士：

當我們的鄉土自1959年被中共武力鎮壓統治後，幾十萬藏族同胞包括我們的精神領袖達賴喇嘛被逼流亡異國，開始艱苦的流亡生涯如今每年仍有許多藏胞為了爭取自由和人權離鄉背井翻越喜馬拉雅山流亡到印度、尼泊爾等世界各地，在僑居地因沒有國籍，永遠過著難民的生活。為了生存，我們這群西藏難胞舉債使用印度或尼泊爾護照來中華民國台灣尋求生路，不料因不識華文華語也不瞭解法律規定，雖然以合法身份入境，卻因逾期居留面臨被逮捕遣返的命運，一旦被遣返回印度、尼泊爾，又將面臨一場牢獄之災，更不幸的極可能被遣返回西藏，喪失寶貴生命。


依聯合國國際人權組織難民的定義，國際間公認將流亡海外藏胞視為國際難民（International Refugees），處理國際難民的最重要原則為「不予遣返」，依照人權的標準來看，遣返國際難民相當於意圖謀殺。我們這一群逾期居留滯台難胞，若貴政府依相關法令處理，則必須遣返西藏，若遣返印度、尼泊爾等原發照國，則服刑後依然要面臨遣返西藏的命運。

如今我們來到嚮往已久民主自由和繁榮的中華民國台灣，希望能在貴國為了維持基本生存而奮鬥，但不幸的貴國尚未有庇護國際難民相關法令，使我們從滿懷希望轉變為極度失望和挫折。身在貴國卻時時刻刻擔憂會被逮捕的惡夢，想找一份工作又因為沒有合法身份而無能為力加上沒有任何經濟來源，令我們舉步維艱，甚至日常生活都有困難。我們這一群滯台難胞衷心期盼基於人道與人權的關懷，台灣中華民國政府和社會各界善先人士能夠伸出援手給我們一條生路。這是發自滯台西藏難民的至誠心聲，希望台灣中華民國政府能夠給予我們生存的空間，使我們看到未來的陽光。為盼！

http://annpohugo.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/tibet/

Support and Advice to Wild Strawberries

Hello Wild Strawberries,

First of all, I want to congratulate you guys on a successful march on Sunday. It just goes to show what people power can accomplish when it is organized and peaceful. However, I was disturbed by an article I read in the Taipei Times today that said KMT officials went to Washington D.C. and denied that police had stopped protesters from waving Republic of China flags or that they closed down the record store that was playing patriotic Taiwanese music. Hopefully NGOs such as Freedom House and Heritage Foundation will remain incredulous about the KMT's version of things, but I think the Strawberries can help counteract the KMT misinformation campaign. If any of you personally know someone who had an ROC flag taken from them, why not have them write letters to the Heritage Foundation and US Congress, giving their first-hand account of what actually took place? Of course, the more people involved the better. I personally saw a flag taken from a women on Taiwanese television and am willing to testify on what I saw.

I think it also would be a good idea for Taiwanese abroad to act in solidarity with the Wild Strawberries in Taiwan in order to help the movement make a greater international impact. I live in Taiwan now, but am from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where there are universities such as Carnegie Mellon, Pitt, and Duquesne and many Taiwanese both teach and take classes at these institutions. There are of course many more Taiwanese on the west coast of the US, in New York City, and all throughout Europe as well. I know it would not be easy to organize abroad, but it would be worth the effort, since not many people seem to know what is going on in Taiwan right now, or they may be getting their information from unreliable sources-- like Ma's stooges.

In Solidarity,

Scott Beck
Taipei, Taiwan

A letter to WS students from Prof. Leigh

Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 12:25:22 AM
From: James Leigh
Professor Emeritus in the College of Education
University of Missouri
Columbia, Missouri, USA

Dear Students:
I recently returned to the United States from a visit to your beautiful country,
where I had the opportunity to talk with other professors and students about my
professional work and interests related to the field of education. Even though the
purpose of my trip was entirely nonpolitical, during my visit I learned about the
Taiwan Wild Strawberries Movement, and I have read with interest the November 10
protest statement and many of the other postings on the TW Action website. After
returning to the U.S., I have been invited to share some of my thoughts and opinions
with you concerning the goals and activities of your movement.
Although the history and culture of our countries are quite different, when I was a
university student in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, there was a great amount of
unrest and turmoil in the U.S. between large numbers of university students and
faculty and others in the American society on the one hand, and staunch supporters of
government, military, and police authorities on the other hand. The protests and
demonstrations focused primarily on disagreement over U.S. policy relating to the
Vietnam war, but also grew to encompass opposing perspectives about other aspects
of American values and culture. Even though the Vietnam war ended long ago, there
are still lingering divisions and resentments harbored by many U.S. citizens as a result of the polarization and conflict from that era. I believe that some of that residual distrust and misunderstanding is now apparent in the socio-political distinction between “red” states and “blue” states in America, which in some respects is not unlike the designation of “blue” and “green” parties today in your country.
I cannot pretend to be well-versed in Taiwanese history and culture and its
complex relationship with the People’s Republic of China, so I will abstain from
offering judgments and specific recommendations regarding your current situation
other than to state that, as I understand it, your purpose appears to be not only just but noble insofar as it intends to protect and advance the cause of democracy and independence in your country. Of course, this position is to be expected from a
citizen of the country that declared its own independence in the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...” This statement maintains that the members of your movement, and indeed all citizens of Taiwan, already have the rights that you advocate by virtue of being human. You are not asking any government to confer such rights that you already possess, but rather your goal is to ensure that your government recognizes and protects those rights.
Since I am not in a position to provide suggestions regarding the particular
strategies and resources your movement should employ toward this goal, I will simply
offer some thoughts to consider based upon my observations of and participation in
protest movements in my own country. For example, one important lesson I learned
is that people are seldom persuaded to a point of view by physical confrontation or
loud and emotionally-charged argument. If anything, such tactics generally produce
a defensive posture in philosophical adversaries, and often are regarded as rude and
arrogant and potentially dangerous by neutral individuals who otherwise might be
open to the message if it had been offered in a less threatening manner. Many of the
violent clashes between student groups and police in the U.S. in the 1960’s were
counterproductive, even though the students’ cause was worthwhile, because so many
citizens were repulsed by what they perceived as the mindless destruction of property, disruption of civil order, injuries, and sometimes even the tragic and needless loss of life.
As you pursue your purpose, I would encourage each of you to remember the
words of Martin Luther King as he wrote from a jail in Birmingham, Alabama: "We
are caught in an inescapable web of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.
Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." If this statement is true, as I believe it to be, the implication is that we must resist the politics of division and hatred in which our only concern and empathy is with those who support and join our cause, and in which others are regarded as enemies to be overcome. This does not mean that you should defer to or attempt to appease the opponents of democracy in your country, but rather that you should remember that it is their positions and policies that you seek to defeat, and not the people themselves. The implication of this distinction is that the fundamental humanity of all people must be respected, which rules out the use of violence or any form of degrading or demeaning attack, even in words, directed toward those with whom you disagree at this time.
Undoubtedly, you have already found that some of your members are well-versed
in the more substantive conceptual aspects of freedom and democracy and human
rights, while other members may only be caught up in their sense of the excitement
and adventure of rebellion and supporting a cause. Many who participated in various
American protest movements were well-informed and committed to their causes, but
it is also true that many were simply bored or dissatisfied young people for whom the
demonstrations and confrontations provided an outlet for their personal frustrations or a source of entertainment and a sense of belonging that they otherwise lacked in their lives.
In order to convince adversaries to listen to one’s perspective, it is necessary to be willing also to listen to and learn about their perspective. Positions and policies are not defeated by how loud and angry our voices of protest can be, but rather by how logical and convincing our reason is in undermining those positions and policies. In other words, to refute an idea, it is first necessary to understand it, which means learning about its background and history and the motives of those who subscribe to it and the positive and negative implications of adhering to that idea. Only then does it become possible to argue against the idea in a systematic, rational, and powerful manner that will appeal to those who are willing to consider differing perspectives.
Accordingly, perhaps your movement will provide an opportunity for your student
leaders also to serve as teachers, providing an education beyond university walls for
many Taiwanese citizens and future political leaders. Many great thinkers before you
have grappled with the notions of freedom and democracy and independence; authors
as diverse as Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Walt Whitman, G. K. Chesterton,
John Kennedy, Ghandi, Paulo Freire, Allen Ginsberg, Noam Chomsky and countless
others have shared their thoughts about such ideals, and you can read and study their
eloquent words today for guidance and inspiration and to translate and share with
your fellow citizens.
Finally, I offer my best wishes to you as you seek to foster a Taiwanese society in
which all citizens can pursue their goals and dreams and live their daily lives in an
atmosphere free from fear and oppression. I hope you continue to be strong and
courageous in your pursuits, resisting any and all attempts to deny your basic human
rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom
to petition, and freedom of the press. I also hope your movement will seek to achieve
its worthy goals, as much as possible without compromising the essential quest for
liberty and democracy, in a spirit of cooperation and inclusion and harmony with all
other citizens of Taiwan, including those with whom you may have disagreements at
this time, while remembering that it is not only the right but also the responsibility of citizens in a democracy to speak out against and non-violently resist any attempts by government to suppress or revoke such rights.

[Taipei Times] [LETTER] KMT's old habits die hard

Wednesday, Dec 03, 2008, Page 8
......
Likewise, to distract people from the deals inked between the two sides during Chen’s visit, Ma fabricated political quarrels over revisions to the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法).

Ma would like Beijing to see the merits of allowing the KMT to rule Taiwan in perpetuity while resisting the urge to forcefully annex Taiwan, an act that would assuredly provoke a regional conflict.

The morphing of Taiwan into a police state is also a way for Ma to identify with Beijing in terms of values — a forerunner to China and Taiwan teaming up against the West. (Full Text)

San Diego's Taiwanese support WSM!

Many among Taiwanese in the U.S. are well educated but we are not arrogant. More often than not, we not only learn from each other but also from others outside of our group. For example, many of us have been learning from the WSM student protesters. Although young and inexperienced, they have proven to be quick learners, very determined and innovative. It is clear that they have won wide-spread support, in and out of Taiwan, of their movement.

In response to their call for support of their planned parade on Sunday, December 7, members of San Diego Taiwanese American community are planning to sponsor an event at San Diego Taiwan Center on December 7. We think these young people deserve our support and encouragement. Some other communities are doing the same.

Increasing number of us think that the baton has to be shared with and even passed on to the younger generation. The future of Taiwan are mostly in the hands of the freedom-loving young people of Taiwan.

To what you are doing in fighting for freedom and democracy, "BRAVO!" we shout.

--Ching-chih Chen, a retired college professor

Scholars Find Taiwan's Minster of Justice's Response Inadequate

Saturday November 29, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.

The previous posting of Taiwan's Minister of Justice's response to the JOINT STATEMENT of the scholars and writers (posted November 15) did not address the real issues of the erosion of justice in Taiwan. Ignoring numerous other protests also listed below, the Minister's response appears to hide behind the technicalities of the Constitution. Taiwan's current Constitution has many inadequacies; among them is that it was created for continental China but ill fits the island nation of Taiwan. By the Minister's implication it is so broad that it allows numerous abuses that may be technically within the letter of the law but far from the spirit and purpose of the law. For this reason it can allow the selective application to one's political opposition and still fall under the umbrella of the Constitution. For that reason, the scholars/writers of the first statement on the erosion of justice in Taiwan felt obligated to respond in specifics to the Minister's letter. That response can be found below.

November 28th 2008

The Honorable Wang Ching-feng

Minister of Justice

Taipei, Taiwan

Dear Minister Wang,

In an open letter to the Taipei Times, published on November 25th 2008, you responded to our joint statement regarding the erosion of justice in Taiwan. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the sincerity of our concerns, and are grateful to receive a prompt and serious reply. Based on the information available to us, however, we remain concerned about choices made by prosecutors in applying existing legal authority and strongly believe in the need for reform. Please allow us to highlight a number of specific points:

1. The procedure of "preventive detention." This procedure is obviously intended for serious criminal cases in which the suspect is likely to flee the country. In his November 13th article in the South China Morning Post, Professor Jerome Cohen states that "it ought to be invoked rarely."

Yet, during the past weeks, it has been used across the board, and it has been used only against present and former members of the DPP government. This casts severe doubts on the impartiality of the judicial system. We also wish to point out that the people involved were detained under deplorable circumstances, and that they were not even allowed to see relatives.
2. The open letter contains the argument that when they were detained, the present and former DPP government officials "were all informed of the charges that had been brought against them." This is simply not correct: when they were detained, they were subject to lengthy interrogations in some cases for up to 20 hours which bore the character of a "fishing expedition," and is not a formal indictment in any legal sense. In most cases the prosecutors had had months of time to collect information: if they did have sufficient evidence of wrong-doing, they should formally have charged the persons and let them have their day in a scrupulously impartial court of law. That would be the desirable procedure under the rule of law in a democratic society.
3. The open letter also states that the persons involved had "the right and ability to communicate with their attorneys to seek legal assistance." It neglects to mention that in all cases where people were detained, the discussions with the lawyers were recorded and videotaped, while a guard took notes. This information was then immediately transmitted to the respective prosecutors. We don't need to point out that this is a grave infringement on international norms regarding the lawyer-client privilege, and makes mounting an adequate defense problematic at best.
4. On the issue of leaks to the press, the letter states that under the Code of Criminal Procedure information on ongoing investigations can only be disclosed by spokespersons of the prosecutor's offices and that unauthorized disclosure is subject to criminal prosecution. The fact of the matter is that during the past weeks, the media has been filled with information on the ongoing investigations which could only have come from the prosecutors. We may point out one example, but there are ample others:

Only a few hours after former Foreign Minister Mark Chen was questioned on November 3rd, the Apple Daily (a local tabloid) ran an article that "the prosecutors are thinking of charging Dr. Chen in relation to the case."

The issue of violation of the principle of secret investigation was also raised by Shih Lin District Court Judge Hung Ing-hua, who strongly criticized the present situation and procedures followed by your Ministry in an article in the "Liberty Times" on November 17th 2008.

We may also mention that we find it highly peculiar that no steps whatsoever have been taken against the various prosecutors who leaked information, while we just learned that your ministry is now taking steps against Mr. Cheng Wen-long, the lawyer for former President Chen Shui-bian, who presumably "leaked" information to the press. Your Ministry sent a formal request to the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office asking the office to investigate and prosecute, and also sent a formal request to Taiwan Lawyer's Association and asked the association to review the case and see whether Cheng should have his license revoked.

It is our understanding that the statements Mr. Cheng made were in relation to former President Chen's views on Taiwan's situation and its future, and an expression of love for his wife, but did not have any bearing on the case against him. We hope your Excellency realizes that if you proceed along these lines, this will be perceived as a direct confirmation of the strong political bias of the judicial system.

5. The letter states that it is untrue that Taiwan's judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation. If this is the case, how can it be explained that in the past weeks, only DPP officials have been detained and given inhumane treatment such as handcuffing and lengthy questioning, while obvious cases of corruption by members of the KMT - including in the Legislative Yuan - are left untouched by the prosecutors or at best stalled in the judicial process?

We may also refer to expressions of concern by Prof. Jerome Cohen and by lawyer Nigel Li, who expressed his deep concerns about the preventive detentions in an editorial in the "China Times" on November 9, 2008. In his editorial, Mr. Li praised the remarks made by prosecutor Chen Rui-ren, who was part of the legal team prosecuting the special fund cases, that the prosecutors' offices should "avoid the appearance of targeting only one particular political group."

The fact that the Special Investigation Task Force was set up under the DPP Administration or that the prosecutor general was nominated by President Chen is not at issue here. The problem is that the present system is being used in a very partial fashion.

We may add that the fact that you yourself have publicly discussed the content of the cases does create a serious imbalance in the playing field, and undermines the basic dictum that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under the present circumstances it is hard to see how the persons involved including former President Chen Shui-bian can have a fair trial in Taiwan.

6. Lastly, you take the statement by the US State Department as an "endorsement" of Taiwan's legal system and the procedures followed. You might want to note that in international diplomatic language, the term we have every expectation means we are concerned and we will watch the situation closely.

For the past two decades, Taiwan has faced a difficult situation internationally. What has given Taiwan important credibility in Western democratic countries around the world has been its democratization. We fear that the current judicial procedures being used in Taiwan endanger this democratization, and endanger the goodwill that Taiwan has developed internationally.

In conclusion: we do remain deeply disturbed by the erosion of justice in Taiwan, and express the sincere hope and expectation that your government will maintain fair and impartial judicial practices and quickly correct the present injustices. As an editorial in the November 20th issue of the London-based Economist indicated, Taiwan is hungry for justice, and we also hope that your government will be willing to initiate judicial reform which would move Taiwan towards a fully fair and impartial judicial system which earns the respect and admiration from other democratic countries around the world.

Respectfully yours,

Signatories of the November 4th Joint Statement

1. Nat Bellocchi, former Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan
2. Julian Baum, former Taiwan Bureau Chief, Far Eastern Economic Review
3. Coen Blaauw, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DC
4. Stéphane Corcuff, Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon, France *
5. Gordon G. Chang, author, "The Coming Collapse of China."
6. David Curtis Wright, Associate Professor of History, University of Calgary
7. June Teufel Dreyer, Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Florida
8. Edward Friedman, Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison
9. Mark Harrison, Senior Lecturer, Head of Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia*
10. Bruce Jacobs, Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
11. Richard C. Kagan, Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University, St. Paul Minnesota
12. Jerome F. Keating, Associate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author, "Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan's Complex History" and other works on Taiwan
13. Daniel Lynch, Associate Professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California
14. Victor H. Mair, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania
15. Donald Rodgers, Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College, Texas
16. Terence Russell, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba
17. Scott Simon, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa
18. Peter Tague, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
19. John J. Tkacik Jr., Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC
20. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang, Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond, Virginia
21. Arthur Waldron, Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania
22. Gerrit van der Wees, Editor Taiwan Communiqué, Washington DC
23. Stephen Yates, President of DC Asia Advisory and former Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs
(Original Page)

[FIDH] [Press Release] Open letter to President Ma, Premier Liu, and R.O.C.--Taiwan

Deep concern regarding the detention and attacks against citizens protesting peacefully during the visit of Chinese envoy Mr. CHEN Yunlin
20/11/2008
Taiwan
Open letter to

* President Ma Ying-jeou
* Premier Liu Chao-hsuan
* Republic of China – Taiwan

Your Excellencies,

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) is writing to you to express its deep concern regarding the detention and attacks against citizens protesting peacefully during the visit of Chinese envoy Mr. CHEN Yunlin. FIDH believes that such arrests and violence are grave violations of human rights, under the pretext of national security.

According to the information received, since November 3rd, 2008, the city of Taipei has been heavily occupied by more than 7,000 police officers. The authorities have taken many drastic measures, including: confiscating and damaging private property, harassing and assaulting people who came too close to undefined or vaguely defined areas, clearing communal highway lanes with force, conducting random searches and arrests, and restricting the freedom of movement of citizens. These actions have been taken during Mr. CHEN’s visit, in the name of protecting security.

However, we fear these aggressions in fact aim at suppressing the right to freedom of expression of citizens. To supplement this violence, there are also unprecedented restrictions which clearly overpass the limits of ensuring security. For example, citizens have been restricted from displaying or carrying the national flag of Taiwan, forbidden to declare that “Taiwan is not part of China”, forbidden from carrying filming devices, and restricted from playing any music the authorities consider inappropriate.

These measures seem to be aimed at silencing political opinions rather than protecting security, and thus they blatantly violate the Constitution of Taiwan, notably Articles 11 and 14 which protect freedom of expression and international human rights standards. Consequently, FIDH requests that the National Police Agency and National Security Bureau, bound by the Constitution and the national legislation, should be held responsible for violating their legal obligations. The Judicial Yuan and Control Yuan should immediately conduct independent and impartial investigations into all allegations of human rights violations and hold all personnel in office accountable for neglecting their civil and legal obligations, in line with the Judicial Yuan’s recent statement that “it is very important to form an objective and solid review standard, and make the constitutional reviews more predictable and trust-worthy to people”. Those who perpetrated these violations, particularly in the National Police Agency and National Security Bureau, must be held accountable, in accordance with Article 24 of the Constitution of Taiwan, which stipulates that “Any public employee who, in violation of law, infringes upon the freedom or right of any person shall, in addition to being subject to disciplinary punishment in accordance with law, be liable to criminal and civil action. The victim may, in accordance with law, claim damages from the State for any injury sustained therefrom.”

More generally, FIDH calls upon the government to amend the Parade and Assembly Law, in particular : to abolish the requirement for mandatory permits and adopt the system of voluntary basis and the clause on special area of restriction, which gives too much discretion to the authority to restrict people’s freedom of association and freedom of expression. In addition the authorities should abolish the order to dismiss as well as the provisions on special criminal punishment, which is a legacy of the martial law era. Finally, Taiwan should establish the protocol for law enforcement personnel who should have the obligation to clearly announce his or her identity when on duty, to ensure legitimacy and accountability.

Your Excellencies,

Our Organization firmly believes that the fruit of Taiwan’s remarkable democratization has landmark significance to the Asian continent as a whole. We therefore express our serious concern over the alarming human rights degradation in Taiwan, and we do take it as a signal of a negative trend undermining the values of democracy and human rights on which Taiwan should be based. Hoping that you will take into consideration the above mentioned concerns, I remain,

Yours sincerely,

Souhayr Belhassen

* FIDH President
Original page: http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article6006