Category: Taiwan – The Reign of the 81 Tyrants

Two versions of the same event at Taiwan's National Palace Museum.  First, Tuesday's Taipei Times:

Taiwan's English unificationist newspaper, the China Post, recalls the Chinese tourists' reactions a bit differently:

Comments in a latter post.

The front page of the Taipei Times featured a story about police home searches of Taiwanese who have been involved in independence-related activities.  The story speaks for itself, but there were a couple points I'd like to mention.  From the Times:

For purposes of comparison, in America it is apparently OK for people to take photos of the police.  Legally it's a mixed bag, however, as FlexYourRights.org explains:

Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal [What about within PRIVATE places, such as your own home? — The Foreigner], so long as you don’t interfere with their activities. Nonetheless, doing so will often get you arrested.

Police don’t like to be watched or documented in any way, so they’ll sometimes bend the rules to stop you. We’ve heard many stories about people who got arrested for taping police, and the charges are usually dropped. If you’re taping or photographing police, make sure you don’t interfere, because “obstruction” is the most likely charge, and you’ll want to be able to defend against it.  [emphasis added]

Despite the risk of arrest, we don’t discourage the taping and photographing of police. Video evidence is uniquely effective in exposing police misconduct. If you acquire video or photographic evidence that warrants an official investigation, create and secure copies of the evidence, then forward it to local police monitoring groups such as civilian review boards, ACLU, and NAACP chapters. You should also obtain legal representation for yourself in case the police department retaliates against you.

Nonetheless, that's America and this is Taiwan.  I've no idea what the local law is regarding the matter.

Getting back to the Taipei Times' story:

Meanwhile, political columnist Paul Lin (林保華) penned an article in the Chinese-language Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) on Wednesday in which he said police from his local precinct had come to his house for no reason.

Paul Lin said he suspected the visit had something to do with recent articles he has written on police abusing their power and disregarding human rights.

In response, police said they were on a routine household visit and that it had nothing to do with Paul Lin’s background or his political opinions.  [emphasis added]

Err, I was under the impression that the Japanese-era law permitting police "household visits" was laid to rest just last year.  In fact, I went out of my way to PRAISE the KMT for repealing the law, which I regarded as a license for law enforcement to go on legal fishing expeditions.

Since the law is obviously still in force, I withdraw my previous compliments.

UPDATE:  It just struck me to wonder how the existence of digital images on someone's camera could POSSIBLY prevent or interfere with a police search.

Taking the pictures, yes, I can see how that MIGHT interfere, under certain circumstances.  The cops want to search a cabinet, let's say, and the homeowner stands in their way with his trusty Nikon.

But if the homeowner stands off to the side and unobtrusively clicks away, I don't see how that constitutes interference any more than if he was simply standing there watching.

UPDATE #2:  Deleted files, photos or e-mails aren't destroyed, so Chen Tsung-yi's data may still be readable.  When one of my digital camera cards became corrupted a few years ago, I was able to recover MOST of my pictures using the $30 PhotoRescue program.

UPDATE #3:  This is beyond satire.  British police tell 64 year-old man that photographing teenage gang members may constitute assault.  How long before Taiwanese police start using THAT as an excuse?

UPDATE #4:  A good editorial on the general topic of videotaping police over at Fox News.

UPDATE #5:  Oh, that's nice.

From Friday's Taipei Times:

Now, the Tibetans in question WERE breaking Taiwan's assembly law by demonstrating without permits.  The police response was however, also unbounded by law.  Doubtless, judges are granted a measure of discretion when adjudicating these types of cases.  But I'm pretty sure there's not a single statute on the books that authorizes law enforcement to pick up suspects and just abandon them SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF FRICKIN' NOWHERE.

The most sinister interpretation of this is that the police were trying to send a signal.  Engage in forbidden dissent, and we can make you "disappear".  Temporarily — though that could change in the future . . .

And the kindest interpretation?  OK, Taiwanese authorities wanted to remove Tibetan protesters from Liberty Square (or Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, or whatever it's being called these days).  Possibly on the basis of "numerous complaints" from Communist Party tourists from China.  But Taiwan's higher-ups didn't want the Tibetans jailed because that might turn them into an international cause celebre.  So instead the cops were instructed to remove the ralliers and make their lives difficult, on the theory that that might help dissuade them from illegally protesting again in the future. 

According to this explanation, the police acted out of cowardice, not deliberate malice.  No real harm done then, and problem solved.  Gin and tonics all around.

No harm done — except when one of these poor bastards gets dropped off by police and meets with an unfortunate accident.  Because it's 3 am, remember?  Pretty easy time to get mugged, or run over, or what-have-you.  And when that happens, who's morally (if not legally) responsible?

The police department that put him there at three in the morning, that's who.

UPDATE:  Today's Taipei Times comes to some of the same conclusions, but also pointed out the fact that the Tibetans didn't speak Mandarin — which made it difficult for them to return back to Taipei after the police drove them from the city.

Also of concern is the behavior of police in apprehending Tibetan protesters at the same location and, in some cases, taking them to the hills of Neihu District (內湖) — in Taipei City terms, the middle of nowhere — and dumping them there. In some cases the hapless Tibetans did not even have the language skills to ask for directions.

It is not clear what this technique might be called in the National Police Agency officers’ manual, but from a legal standpoint it borders on abduction.

Dumping protesters in remote locations is a practice that must cease forthwith. If not, the police will once again invite scrutiny from international rights observers — not something that they would relish given the thoroughgoing incompetence of senior police in dealing with foreign observers.

I ran to the supermarket a few times in the wee hours of that morning, and it was a bit nippy.  I was only outside for 5 or 10 minutes, though, and it was probably colder in the mountains around Taipei, too.  Wonder if any of the Tibetans were dressed for it?

From today's Taipei Times:

Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou must have learned some VERY cutting-edge legal theories when he earned that PhD in law from Harvard University.  So cutting-edge in fact, that Ma's standard of justice shares less in common with Lord Sankey's than with China's Cultural Revolution.

Might make for a good reality TV program, though.  Let's call it, "The People's Republic Court".  All Taiwan needs to do is find some KMT Judge Wapner wannabe — he can be in charge of the "presumption of innocence" part of the verdict.  Meanwhile, a special 1-800 number at the bottom of the screen could allow viewers to vote, in order to give weight to the "public's impression of the subject." 

At the trial's conclusion, a television producer of unusual probity and wisdom would be on hand to split the difference.  To reach the delicate equilibrium of justice.  Ma's balance point, if you will.

All of Taiwan owes Ma Ying-jeou a debt of gratitude.  It was high time SOMEBODY finally put the "Show" back into the Show Trial!

Postscript:  Now we know how sincere the KMT was when they decried populism in Taiwanese politics.  Over there at Harvard, Ma's former law professors ought to hang their heads in shame.

UPDATE:  Despite his many critics and political enemies, President Richard Nixon NEVER had his secret service protection stripped from him by the American Congress, as Taiwan's KMT now proposes to do to former President Chen Shui-bian.

(Nixon did however, voluntarily waive his secret service protection roughly ten years after he resigned from office.)

Robert Mugabe sends goons to burgle opposition political headquarters:

After four days of silence from the government, shadowy intruders ransacked MDC offices…

Interesting that Mugabe had the sense of shame to send UNIDENTIFIED men to do his dirty work.  Unlike the KMT, which of course made ITS attempt at office-breaking last month with four elected LEGISLATORS in broad daylight.

From the Saturday edition of Taiwan’s China Post:

President-elect Ma Ying-jeou said yesterday that he supports reopening the [partisan kangaroo court investigation that would "prove" President Chen Shui-bian’s election in 2004 was invalid, because he "faked" an assassination attempt upon his life in order to win sympathy votes.  The pieces fit together PERFECTLY – really, they do!]

Bet the Taiwanese electorate will be positively thrilled to watch the KMT hard at work, fulfilling all those sincere campaign pledges to FOCUS LIKE A LASERBEAM on the economy.

No, no – that’s not a scoop from hostile newspapers. That’s the glowing message from SYMPATHETIC media organs:

Seventeen of [Ma Ying-jeou’s] classmates at the former affiliated elementary school of the provincial Taipei Girls’ Normal School were present at the morning [class reunion] party, where they reminisced about Ma, the discipline enforcer of the class.

"He was a strict disciplinarian," one classmate pointed out.

[…]

All his classmates present at the [recent class reunion] addressed Ma as "Our Classmate the President," though he continued to serve as their discipline enforcer.

Ma called the roll. Everyone had to answer "Here." Then he led everyone in singing the school anthem. He never hesitated to point an accusing finger at anyone who didn’t open his mouth wide enough to sing.

When the former classmates jostled against each other to get an autograph, Ma the disciplinarian ordered them to line up for a group picture first. "Picture first, then the autograph," Ma commanded. Everybody obeyed.

Don’t think I’ve ever heard the words, "strict disciplinarian," used as a compliment before.  There’s something a bit repulsive about rosily portraying the officious behavior of a bossy 6 year-old.

At any rate, that’s the narrative Ma’s idolizers in the Fourth Estate are trying to create, as this recounting of an earlier encounter shows:

President-elect Ma Ying-jeou brought his supporters into line in front of his home in Taipei [on the morning of March 25th].

"I will count [to] five," Ma told the hundreds of people who gathered to wait for his return home from a morning jogging.

"Then, line up in queue," ordered the president-elect like a drill sergeant giving orders to his recruits in boot camp.

They obeyed.  They had to, because they wanted to shake his hands, pose with him for a picture, or get autographs.

Ma obliged.

Former elementary school classmates and star-struck supporters are one thing.  It remains to be seen whether Taiwan’s 81 Tyrants will be quite so servile towards the former Strongman-in-Short-Pants.

Remember how the KMT threatened to sic John Law after Theresa Shaheen when it looked like she might deliver some unwelcome news about the validity of Ma Ying-jeou’s old American green card?

Theresa Shaheen, former chairwoman of the American Institute in Taiwan, is being given a…warning against getting involved in the "green card" issue over Kuomintang presidential hopeful Ma Ying-jeou.

"We wish Ms. Shaheen to know that it’s unlawful for an foreign national to get involved in an election in Taiwan," a top aide to Ma said yesterday. According to the Election Law, no foreign nationals may electioneer for a candidate in Taiwan.

Well, I was just throwing out old newspapers around here, when I happened to run across this:

Meanwhile, Ma’s campaign team invited a US immigration lawyer to support the candidate’s claim that it was not necessary to complete an I-407 form to give up one’s green card.

Query:  I wonder if Ma’s aides issued similar threats to the U.S. immigration lawyer whom they invited to speak on their candidate’s behalf?  I mean, you can’t graduate with an S.J.D. in Law from Harvard like Ma did, and not believe in the sacred principle of equality before the law, can you?

Can you?

POSTSCRIPT:  My initial post on the subject can be found here.

UPDATE (Mar 31/08):  Therese Shaheen denies the KMT story that she was ever willing to wade into the green card controversy:

In her statement, in English and Chinese, Shaheen said she was "never involved in any matters" regarding the green card issue during the presidential campaign.

"Fantastic rumors about my alleged involvement, my plans to make public statements about it, and the allegation that I was doing so because I favored one party over the other were 100 percent false," she said.

 

KMT stalwarts begin to openly discuss changing Taiwan into an illiberal democracy:

…there is nothing "terrible" if one party controls both the legislative and executive branches of government.  Nothing terrible has happened in Singapore after the ruling PAP’s (People Action Party) established one-party dominance.  In fact, Singapore is the envy of the developing world, just as Taiwan once was.

It would be only too easy to rattle off a list of one-party states that subsequently became hells-on-earth.  Funny how president-elect Ma Ying-jeou never mentioned this little scheme in front of the electorate.  But then I guess he’s clever enough to realize proposing a soft dictatorship BEFORE the polls open might not have gone down so well with the voting public.