On June 12th, between the Taipei City Council and the Legislative Yuan buildings, the "Democratic Progressive Party," the "Anti-Communist Patriotic Front," and the "New Testament Church" faced off. The former two engaged in polemics about whether or not the National Security Law should be adopted, while the latter was protesting the visit of Premier Yu Kuo-hwa to Singapore. Moods turned ugly until finally there was fighting with sticks, flagpoles, and pieces of brick, fighting which resulted in injuries. The traffic in downtown Taipei was brought to a standstill.
The National Security Law has already passed deliberation by the Legislative Yuan, and martial law is to be lifted in July. After martial law, people will have the right of assembly and the right to march. But should these activities include "rules of the game"? Sinorama interviewed Assistant Professor Su Yung-chin of the Department of Law at Chengchi University for his views.
Q: Under current law, under what circumstances can people take to the streets to exercise their right to petition?
A: Like those of most democratic countries, our constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, and petition. But article 23 also says that there may be legal restrictions in cases where it is necessary to prevent the infringement of others' rights, block a crisis situation, maintain public order, or promote the public welfare.
The most strict restrictions on these freedoms come from the martial law. Other laws also empower the government to restrict these rights.
Though protected in principle, assemblies, new organizations, and marches which lack prior official approval are still illegal while under martial law.
Q: After martial law?
A: After martial law, petition marches will be legal and constitutionally protected, provided they do not include criminal behavior.
The problem is that in public assemblies people may get carried away by emotion, and get out of control. We should set some concrete standards, not as a way of prohibiting assembly, but as a way of guiding it, to reduce the danger of unexpected crises.
Q: In that case, should the Law on Public Assembly be adopted immediately after the lifting of martial law?
A: My opinion is that the law has its positive functions: to set some "rules of the game"
But of course this law must undergo a long process of discussion. If this period of discussion serves an educational function, then I do not think one or two years would be too long a time.
Q: As for the Law on Assembly and Marches, what do you think it should include? What principles should be observed?
A: In crowded Taiwan, where only a few people can inconvenience a large number, the law should set detailed rules for people, issues, time, place, and equipment, in order to protect the security of the average citizen.
As for principles, currently every country has the principle of registration or of permission. Registration is for us a little too broad. But in using permission, we should have a set of relatively objective standards so that except for special circumstances permission will always be granted.
Participant responsibility should also be included. If a street activity lacks permission, ignores police orders to disperse, exceeds the expected time, or involves dangerous objects, then there should be punishment.
Though most countries do not have this kind of participant responsibility, I think that if, say, there is destruction of public property, participants or the leaders should have some kind of joint responsibility for restitution.
Aside from this, the freedom of reporters is very important, and participants in street activities must provide them freedom and security.
Q: You have raised the idea of prohibited areas for assembly. From a democratic viewpoint, what's wrong with a demonstration outside the legislature?
A: Many countries have such restericted areas. And demonstrating outside the legislature doesn't accord with the spirit of the Constitution.
Freedom of assembly cannot be used to invade the decision-making institutions. There are normal channels like elections. The point of public assembly is to appeal to public opinion, and only to indirectly influence the decision-making institution.
Q: Aside from location, how are the current marches different from those of Europe and the U.S.?
A: There is one big difference. In Germany, for example, demonstrations are usually by interest groups, and rarely involve political parties. The latter act through the legislature.
Further, they rarely appeal directly to the government, but to public opinion. To surround and "strike" directly at the decision-making institutions is an extremely abnormal phenomenon.
Q: How about protecting the rights of the public? Do they have a right to security and to convenience?
A: Of course. In the Law on Assembly and Marches there are two approaches. One sets specific regulations, e.g., what time of the day activities are prohibited. As for problems of confusion or inconvenience, the spectators must share responsibility. So one had better restrain one's curiosity to avoid becoming an obstacle to public order.
[Picture Caption]
On June 12th, police form a human wall at the entrance to the Legislative Yuan to separate two groups with differing views and prevent further incidents between them. (photo courtesy of United Daily News Data Center)
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
