15 Nov 2008
[Taipei Times] Strawberries returning to sit-in protest
STAFF WRITER, WITH CNA
Saturday, Nov 15, 2008, Page 4
The organizers of a recently established student movement pushing for reform of the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) announced yesterday a plan to expand the sit-in protest.
Lin Yu-hsuan (林邑軒), spokesman for the Taiwan Wild Strawberries Movement, said the week-long sit-in at Taipei’s Liberty Square would be expanded today and was expected to draw approximately 1,000 participants, including student representatives from Hsinchu, Taichung, Chiayi, Tainan and Kaohsiung.
The sit-in earlier saw around 500 students participate, but the number has dropped to below 100 over the past few days as many returned to school for mid-term exams.
Lin said the group did not rule out the possibility that politicians sympathizing with their cause may be invited to take part. They had previously banned non-students from participating.
Lin said the group would continue their peaceful demonstration until their appeals were answered, disregarding possible dispersal by the police.
Over the past week, the group of students has been staging the sit-in to protest what they called the use of excessive force by police to disperse pro-independence demonstrators during a recent visit to Taiwan by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林).
In addition to demanding an apology from President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄), the student group is also asking for the resignations of National Security Bureau Director-General Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明) and National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chun (王卓鈞).
The students also want the assembly law to be amended to relax its restrictions on people’s right to demonstrate. Protesters had complained that their applications to protest were rejected in many areas.
In a radio interview on Wednesday, Ma said there was room for improvement in Tsai and Wang’s performance in handling the demonstrations, but added: “This was not to the extent that they should be removed from their posts.”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/11/15/2003428655
[Rationale] Why President Ma and Premier Liu Should Issue an Apology
While we whole-heartedly agree that the government must provide adequate protective detail to ensure Mr. Chen's safety, especially given the alleged attack of ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing during his visit. However, we also firmly believe that law enforcement tactics extended beyond protective details. Not only have these extreme security measures threatened Taiwanese citizens' civil rights, upset the balance of law and order, but more importantly, endangered our democratic nation. Simply put, a government must answer to the highest law of our land, the Constitution.
Let us evaluate the so called "security measures" over the past few days: (1) clearing and monitoring all major highways; (2) banning any public displays of our national flag; (3) censoring citizens who proclaim "Taiwan is not a part of China"; (4) confiscating private properties including flags and display signs, and (5) the continued inability of Secretary Minister Hsueh Hsiang-Chuan to explain the reasoning behind forcibly shutting down a privately owned business, Sunrise Record Store. The aforementioned activities clearly demonstrate the oppression of freedom of speech in an effort to welcome Mr. Chen, posing a severe threat to our constitution and our hard-earned freedom and democracy. While we recognize the importance of ensuring the safety of any foreign dignitaries visiting Taiwan, we challenge the notion that everyday citizens with digital video camcorders filming Mr. Chen's motorcade would endanger his safety. Moreover, we question the danger of waving our national flag in public areas. The heightened and over-reactive security measures throughout Mr. Chen's visit illustrated a government, designed to protect and guarantee its citizens' fundamental human rights, became an oppressive entity which deprived its citizens of life, liberty and property and disregarded the right to assemble. By sacrificing the diversity and freedom of speech in our multidimensional society, we have paid the hefty price of undermining Taiwan's democratic constitutional government.
Even prior to Mr. Chen's visit, there were signs that Taiwanese people was not unanimous in welcoming such a visit, not to mention lingering doubts regarding an earlier meeting between SEF Chairman Chiang and Mr. Chen. We question the government's reluctance to allow dissenting voices practice their freedom of speech and more importantly, the censorship of such dissenting voices. If the Taiwanese government had allowed its diverse citizens to freely express their opinions through legal and already established means, we believe violent clashes and civil rights violations would not have occurred.
If the President decides to view the aforementioned examples of power abuse as separate and unrelated incidents, he would be ignoring a systemic and prevalent issue that exists within our system. Inevitably, this would lead to a gradual dissipation of freedom and democracy in Taiwan, and an end to the established law and order. As such, we believe that the President and Premier, who are tasked with protecting our constitutional rights, should be held responsible.
However, we believe the fact that the restriction of freedom and excessive law enforcement tactics were systematic, clearly organized, and concentrated in certain areas illustrate these measurements of control were not accidental and certainly should not be viewed as isolated incidents. Moreover, the statement that The Wild Strawberries Movement is not representative of majority opinion fails to address the legality of the government’s recent actions. We deeply regret Premier Liu’s refusal to address the civil rights violations and the power abuse considering that a government’s legitimacy should not be solely based on “majority opinion” and that dissenting voices, however debatedly minority voices, must also be heard. Once again, Premier Liu’s response has shown the government’s blatant disregard for freedom of speech.