To Obey or no to Obey, This is the Question
By linanne10
(originally post on Sociological eye)
While most of the discussions on equality and political change occur around the presidential election in United States last week, events of civil rights movement are not limited to the US continent. A student-led protest for the freedom of speech and assembly is burning through out the island of Formosa. On November 3rd, the representative from China’s Association of Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), Chen Yunlin, came to visit Taiwan and met with the Taiwanese current president, Ma Ying-jeou, on trade agreements and economic cooperation between Taiwan and China. Due to political beliefs, hundreds of protestors gathered around the venue to protest against the meeting. Government officials required that all protesting activities should be shield off within Chen Yunlin’s eye-sight. Taiwanese flags were banned, protesting groups were expelled or arrested, Taiwanese songs were shut off in near by record stores and there were also violence conduct by polices against civilians. This induced a protest led by students against the “law on assembly and parade” in Taiwan. The law on assembly and parade in Taiwan restricts the people’s mobility and freedom to carry out protests, while reinforcing government agencies’ power to monitor and control such events. Liberty and freedom are crucially at stake in this political incident.
Two important aspects of liberty manifested in the protest could find their roots in theories of civil and social rights. Political and social scientist, Deborah Stone, has distinguished between two kinds of liberty: negative liberty and positive liberty. Negative liberty defines rights as the absence of constraint among citizens, while positive liberty defines rights as active provision of opportunities and resources by the government to citizens. The freedom of speech and assembly could be seen as a negative liberty. There should be as less government intervention as possible when members of a society attempt to express their opinions and ideas, no matter what form they take on. A positive notion is also at work in framing the concept of liberty. In order to enable minority groups to express their opinions and ideas more freely, and voice beyond the overwhelming oppression of mainstream ideologies, official agencies should actively provide a secured space and platform for expression. In this on going protest, the students merely request for negative liberty, trying to lift regulations violating basic human rights. Before the law on parade and assembly is abolished, it is hard to ask the government to assure more positive liberty for the freedom of speech.
However, in terms of legal conflicts of the act of the protest itself, a dilemma occurs. The law on parade and assembly demands that protestors have to apply to protest six days before the event. Certain issues are banned and certain locations are not allowed for assemblage. The protest follows the idea of “civil disobedience,” by the philosoper, Thoreau. The students insist on not applying for permission in order to manifest and protest against the absurdity of the law. They also insist on gathering in forbidden locations before expelled by force. The question here is: if citizens do not have to conform to the law when they see it as “illegitimate,” what authority would the law still retain in its ruling over members of the society?
Protest in Taiwan continues, named “Wild Strawberry Movement”
Originally posted in free speech in Taiwan
Protest in Taiwan continues, named “Wild Strawberry Movement”
(Alice Ju, Taiwanese student)
The protest initiated by professors and students in Taiwan has been longer than 96 hours, and protesters voted to name the protest as Wild Strawberry Movement on Nov. 9.
Strawberry is a symbol that mainstream media often used to satire young people who was born in 1980s by calling them “group of strawberry”. Born at the economic rising age, this generation is thought less painstaking than their parents and with less anti-pressure ability, just as strawberry couldn’t be pressed anymore. Students choose “Wild Strawberry” to counteract the stigmatization imposed by media.
This movement is the biggest student movement after the Wild Lily student movement in 1990. Both movements are launched by students, and are held in the same place, Liberty Square, which used to be Memorial Square before 2008. In Wild Lily student movement students demonstrated for democratic reform and now students are seeking the freedom of assembly and parade.
Wild Lily student movement is regarded as a major event in the evolution of democratic in Taiwan. They sought direct elections for president and vice president, which came true in 1996, after six years of the protest.
A lot of the demonstrators are now members of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the opposite party, including the protest leader of the Wild Strawberry movement, so some people doubt the movement was controlled by DPP.
Action Statement from the “Wild Strawberry Movement”
Originally posted in free speech in Taiwan
Action Statement from the “Wild Strawberry Movement”
Movement Origins
We are a group of university professors, students, cultural workers, and
citizens who are concerned about Taiwan’s current state of disorder and
future development. Over the past few days, we have seen numerous
instances of police overreaction and suppression, which have caused injury
to citizens exercising their right to free speech. Through reports in the
media, we have come to realize the seriousness of the current situation. It is
no longer a technical question of excessive law enforcement tactics, nor is it
simply a partisan issue between supporters of various political parties. This
is a proliferation of state sponsored violence that is challenging and
attacking civil society. Our concern over this state of affairs led us to
peacefully protest at the gates of the Executive Yuan, beginning at 11AM on
November 6. At 4PM on November 7, we were dispersed by the police. We
have since regrouped at Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall , where we plan to
engage in a long term struggle.
Oppose Police Overreaction and the Suppression of Human Rights by the
Unconstitutional Assembly and Parade Law
Inappropriate acts taken by police in recent days include the following:
Forcibly shutting down major highways. Prohibiting citizens from waving the
national flag in public. Prohibiting citizens from stating that “Taiwan does
not belong to China” in public. Confiscating the personal property of
citizens, such as flags and signs with slogans. Forcibly detaining citizens
filming areas near the Grand Hotel with handheld camcorders, without
following due process. Preventing citizens from flying balloons protesting
toxic Chinese food products. Forcibly detaining citizens on a moped carrying
a Tibetan flag. Ordering the closure of a music store playing Taiwanese
music. The police have tried to justify these repressive actions by claiming
violations of the Assembly and Parade Law, the Social Order Maintenance
Law, and invoking the Regulations on Police Duties, while ignoring the fact
that their actions are in violation of the Constitution, Civil Law, and other
higher level laws guaranteeing the peoples’ free speech and property rights.
On the Importance of Personal Freedom
We believe in the importance of freedom. Imagine for a moment what
would have resulted had the government ordered the police to crack down
on the 2007 Red Shirt demonstration in front of the Presidential Office. The
citizens of Taiwan would not have had the opportunity to listen to other
opinions. It was only because they were not dispersed that different voices
could be heard. Only by being exposed to numerous different viewpoints,
can we learn how to determine for ourselves the quality of different
opinions. This is an essential requirement for a functioning civil society, and
illustrates the importance of free speech.
It is because free speech is so important that its protection is enshrined in
the Constitution. Other laws must support the Constitution, facilitating its
execution and specifying its limits. Despite this, the Assembly and Parade
Law – left over from the authoritarian days of martial law, gravely damages
the right to free speech. By requiring protesting citizens to acquire a permit
for a lawful demonstration, rather than simply notifying the government
beforehand, it allows protests to be declared illegal before they even take
place. Its excessive provisions for restricted areas off limits to protesters,
allows governmental organs to insulate themselves from being challenged by
public opinion. By granting the police excessive powers, it allows the police
to take the place of judges in a court of law.
Concrete Demands
Amend the Assembly and Parade Law
We provide the following suggestions for revising the Assembly and Parade
Law: (1) Change the current permit system to a notification system. The
government has no right to examine the peoples’ motivations beforehand,
and declare unfavorable demonstrations to be illegal before they even take
place; (2) Reexamine the current provisions for restricted areas.
Demonstrations and marches allow unarmed citizens without any other
means to make their grievances known and petition for redress. The current
restricted areas do not allow the people to challenge governmental
agencies; (3) Clarify permissible actions by the police in enforcing the law.
Do not grant a blank check for the police to exercise whatever methods they
see fit; (4) Make the new law an administrative law, rather then penal law.
Compared to other laws, the current Assembly and Parade Law calls for
heavier punishment for the same illegal actions, violating the principle of
proportionality.
Punish Police Personnel Engaging in Inappropriate Behavior
The recent clashes between the people and the police have left us with a
great sense of sorrow. We have been asked why we have not stood out to
condemn violent mob behavior. To this, we provide the following response:
We are determined to protect and support the people in freely expressing
their opinions, and condemn any and all acts of violence, be they from the
people or the police. From the many events of the past few days, we have
seen that while violent acts on the part of the people can be regulated by
law, law enforcement agencies can also abuse their power to justify
unlimited brutality without any appropriate restriction or regulation. It is
because of this that we condemn the government and the police for
increasingly ignoring the law, and for inappropriate use of force to violently
suppress the rights of the people to freely express their views. We request
that a full investigation be carried out to identify police officers who abused
their authority, and that appropriate punitive measures be taken.
Additionally, the directors of the police and national security agencies who
are ultimately responsible must step down.
President Ma must Apologize
The use of force by police is a symbol of state sponsored violence, and
should only be used when absolutely necessary to safeguard the rights of the
people to life, liberty, and property. Its use should never be employed
without the utmost care. However, police agencies are only passive
mechanisms that execute the orders issued to them. The positions and
directives of the government, as well as the ruling party, will directly
impact how rank and file police officers go about their duties. We condemn
the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou for trampling on the spirit of
freedom and democracy that are fundamental to the foundation of our
nation, and demand that he apologize.
Creating a movement of Civil Disobedience
We are a movement of civil disobedience initiated by students, and with
students as our core. When the government invokes the unconstitutional
Assembly and Parade Law, or abuses lawful governmental authority,
subsequent governmental actions are illegitimate. The people have a right
to refuse to obey illegitimate governmental actions. We hope that all people
who agree with our statement will join us in this movement to demand that
President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan apologize to all
citizens; that National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun and
National Security Bureau Director Tsai Chao-ming step down; and that the
Legislative Yuan immediately amend the Assembly and Parade Law so that it
does not threaten the rights of the people.
(Translated by Loren Chang,海天)
Taiwanese students are protesting in major cities in Taiwan.
(Alice Ju,Taiwanese student)
The protest launched on Nov. 6 by professors and students in National Taiwan University has not finished, and students in Kaohsiung, Tainan, Taichung, and Hsinchu begin to protest.
There were still 700 students in the Square of Freedom outside the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall at 3 a.m. on Nov. 9.
Momentous Events in the history of free speech development in Taiwan
Originally posted in free speech in Taiwan
(Jiaoyan Huang,Taiwanese student)
Since 1949, Taiwan has been governed by KMT (a political party from China), and there was no human right or speaking freedom. However, people in this country wanted these rights back in 1980s. There was an important person, whose name was Nanrong Zheng, and he tried to stand against the government and to correct the unreasonable political situation at that time. He was accused of violating the law of election and was put in prison in 1986. After discharged, Mr. Zheng worked for the Taiwan independence and for the particular 228 incident, which was an event about how KMT crucified Taiwanese in 1947. Because he published many magazines and tried to present the ideas different from KMT, he was considered as the betrayer of ROC by KMT in 1989, but it was not the truth. He claimed that unfortunately, KMT can imprison body but not the spirit. Then he stayed in the office from January 21 and committed suicide burning himself in April 7. He sacrificed himself to play against KMT for free speaking and Taiwan independence.
As DDP governed the country, the recently illegal protests became legal immediately, such as red-cloth protest (2006) and the invalid election of Taiwan president (2004). However, this time, KMT allowed police to overuse the power and prohibit Taiwanese to say anything which is different from KMT. Compared with Mr. Zheng, the recent protests are more peaceful; however, I still hope Taiwanese can live without scare. Now KMT governs the operation of Legislative Yuan, so they have the power to amend the law. If this unreasonable law can be corrected, the minor ideas can be spoken out. I wish Taiwan can step into next stage after this protest. The law can become more complete, and the government can put the rights of people ahead more.
反集會遊行法中日文聲明稿 (Statement in Japanese)
Originally posted in blog 1106
這是由網友擁抱似水年華所翻譯的反集會遊行法中日文聲明稿，感謝！
11月3日から、中国海峡両岸関係協会(ARATS)の代表団が台湾を訪問し、様々な協定を台湾政府と結び始め、警察は「平和維持」を名目に、平和的に反対している人々に対し頻繁に粗暴な行為を行いしました。これらの行為には任意の尋問、器物損壊、禁止、逮捕、拘留がなされました。警察の蛮行の犠牲者の大部分が、ARATS委員長陳雲林（チェン・ユンリン）に近づいたわけではなく、単に制限区域を通行したり、少し立ち止まって写真を撮っただけでした。
メディアによる報道を通して、私たちは現在の状況の深刻さを痛感しています。それはもう過度の治安維持の技術的な問題ではなく、そして単なる異なる支持政党に関する問題でもなく、これは忌々しい国家権力の暴走と、市民社会に対する重大な挑戦であり侵犯です。まるで戒厳時代に戻ったように、自由人権を無視、民主的価値を抑えこうもうとしている。これについては与党の立法者さえ最も権威のある劉行政院長（行政府長官＝首相）に責任を追及しているが、首相は言を左右にして、責任を巧みに回避しています。私たちは、この返答に非常に怒っており、気絶させられるほどの恥辱を感じており非常な不安を感じています。
私たちがどうしても聞かなければならないことは、中台間の経済交流を強化するために、わが国が中国と同じレベルの抑圧的な独裁的支配と、自由と民主主義の水準を引き下げることが必要なのか？
と言うことです。
ほんの僅かな間で、台湾国民がようやく手に入れた民主的で自由な体制は、警察国家的で、恐怖と鎮圧の雰囲気にほとんど崩されてしまいした。警察国家のようなバリケードの裏で、台湾政府は自らの「歴史的な儀式」に陶酔し、様々な贈答などの自己満足に溺れています。そこでは憲法に保障された国民の「言論の自由」と「行動の権利」が捨てられると言うよりも、完全に忘れられてしまったようです。
彼らの主な行動規範が違憲であるため、カメラの前に立つ警察官も堂々と順法よりも上司の指示に従っています。警察官は元々国民を守る公僕であるべきなのに、彼らは今の政府から出された粗暴な要求によって、意見を言う一般の人々を規制し、罰する暴漢となりました。私たちは上司の命令に従う警察官を非難するつもりは全くないですし、むしろ私たちは政府に対して権威を乱用している政治責任を真剣に追及したいのです。
私たちは（政治的な意図で集められたのではなく）単なる台湾の「現状の混乱」と「今後の発展」に関して心配している大学教授、学生、文化的な労働者と市民です。どんな政党や市民団体からも少しもサポートや動員をされることなく、 2008年11月6日（木）午前11時（台湾時間）に、私たちの苦痛と抗議を象徴する黒い服とマスクで行政院前に集合し、手に手を繋ぎ平和的に、私たちの主張が受けられるまで座る決意をしております。
私たちの要求は：
一、馬英九総統（大統領）と劉兆玄行政院院長（首相）は公式に国民に謝罪をすること。
二、王卓鈞警政署長（警察署長）と蔡朝明国安局長（国家公安委員長）はすぐ辞職すること。
三、立法院（議会）は早急に国民の権利としての「集会およびデモに関する法律」を改善すること。
以上
聯絡人：李明璁（台大社會系助理教授；Mobile：0972-102-502）
共同發起人：
李明璁（臺灣大學社會學系助理教授）
藍佩嘉（臺灣大學社會學系副教授）
劉華真（臺灣大學社會學系助理教授）
范 雲（臺灣大學社會學系助理教授）
洪貞玲（臺灣大學新聞學所助理教授）
何東洪（輔仁大學心理學系助理教授）
管中祥（中正大學傳播學系助理教授）
張鐵志（作家，哥倫比亞大學政治學博士後選人）
陳育青（紀錄片工作者）
林世煜（文化工作者）
胡慧玲（陳文成紀念基金會執行長）
李昀真（臺大社會系二年級學生）
張勝涵（臺大政治系二年級學生）
吳沛憶（臺大政治系四年級學生）
陳柏屼（臺大社會系三年級學生）
陳家慶（臺大法律系三年級學生）
余崇任（臺大社會系三年級學生）
彭維昭（臺大外文系四年級學生）
楊緬因（臺大人類系二年級學生）
李東諺（政大臺史所一年級學生）
王聖芬（臺大中文系四年級學生）
李冠和（臺大政治系四年級學生）
張之豪（市民）
許維德(交大人文社會學系助理教授)
林秀幸(交大人文社會學系助理教授)
柯朝欽(交大人文社會學系助理教授)
林秀珊(交大人文社會學系研究助理)
吳宗信(交大機械系教授)
Speak Up!(From 吳怡旻 Carolyn Wu’s blog)
Originally posted in Carolyn Wu’s blog
Dear Whom It May Concern,
I’ve been in a terrible mood these two days. I watched the tv up to 10 hours a day reluctantly. Yes! I can just turn it off but i left it be on. I know I can keep silence and do nothing and…just let the time passes and just let it go and let it be. But I don’t want, and I cannot betray my faith.
During the summer session that I attended which talked about English literature. All that we talked about in classes was that the core thought of knights in middle century of Britain– the faith in his land, his lord and his country if there is one. Many people consider knights’ faith lies in their gentle attitude toward ladies; however, it’s only half way to the right answer. The core value for a knight to fight against monsters (resemblance of anti-Jesus religions, crown competitors and so on) was the faith to contribute their strength, spirit and their body to his country by glorious battles. They are not perfect, even far away from perfection comparing with strong monsters, like Sir Gawayne in the novel. Protesting people recently unfairly treated by police reminded me of Sir Gawayne and his brave behavior. He bore a mission that is to protect a lady from faraway nation on the way to her home which was occupied by a great monster. He was defeated to nearly death but Faith, Moral and Hope led him to a glorious house to heal his wounds and finally got the strengh to beat the biggest monster in the end. Don’t you think those people who were their to speak out “Taiwan is my country!”, “No Communism invasion!” and “No police violence!” are really brave ones who bore the risk to be arrested and violently retreat. What they wanted was very similar to their earlier generation–FREEDOM.
I could not believe my eyes everytime i turn on my tv. I could not believe the land that I have lived for 23 years become a place to be ruined by police and politicians. I could not take the visit of our potential barrel officer worths our welcome let alone the exagerating protection. But what I cannot take upmost is the way they treat OUR PEOPLE who was supposed to be OUR. They climbed upon protesters’ shoulders, protesters’ bellies to protesters’ head sin order to get their power shown and their political rightness seen by their boss and bosses if chinese ones were included.
Those Tibet people who seek for political heritages in Taiwan are another story to tell my sympathy and sorry for their embarrassing situation now. I think if we don’t speak up for them today, one day, which might be very fast, when we need political heritage from another free country in the world, we will not get any because the way we treat those Tibet people this unfair way.
My grandpa used to tell me the effort and fight in his generation to reach democracy, but i think he forgot to remind me the fragilty democracy itself. He also forgot to tell me if neccesary, i need to demonstrate, I need speak up and i need to do anything possible to unlock those blocks. The reason he forgot to tell me was because he never imagined this could ever happen again in this beautiful island.
I’m sorry, grandpa. It happens and still happening.
So, SPEAK UP, TAIWANESE! For our land, our country our people and our Grandparents! They are too matured to go on the street and we should make them comfort as a feedback to their suffer during past 60 years.
I wanna speak up and I know you’re too!
So, speak up! Don’t be afraid!
Speak up! Don’t hesitate!
Speak up! We are all together!
Speak up! for our continuous living in this land!
Please speak up and be at my side!
(Carolyn Wu, Taiwanese)
Taiwanese Students are using mobile devices to broadcast their protest.
Students are broadcasting the protest on Live Yahoo. (Photo:chitsaou,student)
Taiwanese university students have been protesting for freedom of speech and human rights in Taipei since Nov. 6, capital of Taiwan. Students don’t want the protest be distorted by the mainstream media, so they use their own laptop and digital cameras to broadcast the protest on yahoo, attracting thousands internet users.
The broadcast was set up for those who can’t attend the protest to understand what is happening, and also let their friends know that they are safe. The other concern is that the protest might be tagged as political activity or violence by mainstream media, so students tried to broadcast the real scene by themselves.
In order to let more people understand the protest, students report the scene for audience in Mandarin, Hakka, and English. They also interview students and professors.
Owing to the visit of there are several protests in Taipei now, which are hold by different groups. The biggest one belongs to Democratic Progress Party, the opposite party, which leads several protests in more radical methods which is different from the students’ peace method. Students know that mainstream media might link their protest with DPP, so they try to document their protest in advance.
Watch their boadcast here.
(Alice Ju, Student at Universtity of Texas at Austin)
An article from a professor’s blog
Dear Visitors,
親愛的訪客，
The site is taken down as a way to humbly protest the lost of freedom of
speech and Liberty in Taiwan.
本站暫時關閉，作為臺灣失去言論自由和人身自由的卑微抗議。
I was questioned by a police on the street across NTU campus just because I
aimed my camera to a police on the street. No name tag on his uniform and no
identification for himself. Most importantly, I am not the only one.
我受到一名警察的盤問，只因為我在跨越台大校園時，將我的相機對準了街上的警察。
他的制服上沒有姓名條，也沒有任何個人辨識。最重要的是，並不只有我一個受到盤
問。
If I have told you that Taiwan government works very hard to protect her
people,
I take it back.
如果我曾跟你說過臺灣政府很努力的保護她的人民，
我收回。
If I have told you that Taiwan is a democratic society,
I take it back.
如果我曾經告訴你台灣是個民主社會，
我收回。
If I have told you that we can always complain the President in public,
I take it back.
如果我曾經告訴你，我們總是可以在公眾場合抱怨總統，
我收回。
If I have told you that Taiwan is a nice place to visit,
I take it back.
如果我曾經告訴你台灣是個值得拜訪的好地方，
我收回。
Very soon, visiting Taiwan will just experience what you have in Mainland
China.
很快的，拜訪臺灣的經驗就會跟你拜訪中國大陸一樣了。
Please accept my apology for any inconvenience.
如有不便，敬請見諒。
Nov. 5th, 2008.
Chi-Sheng Shih is a professor at Department of Computer Science of National Taiwan University. He said that one policeman questioned him because he want to take photos of the policeman. There were several protests in Taiwan against the visit of representatives from China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) and there were several violence when police tried to keep order. Shih was questioned when he tried to document what he saw.
Free Speech In Taiwan 