|
EDITORIAL: The law
should be blind to politics
The judiciary has often been criticized for not being politically color blind,
with a number of indictments and rulings handed out by prosecutors and courts
being perceived by the public as involving double standards.
Following an outpouring of public indignation last week over the sentencing of
former Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世), which prompted heated
discussion online with many netizens suggesting that possessing Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT) membership offers better protection than any other lucky
charm — another case late last week also stirred up controversy.
On Saturday, 72-year-old Peter Wang (王獻極) and 58-year-old Lai Fang-cheng (賴芳徵)
were indicted by the Taipei Prosecutors’ Office on charges of violating the
Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) for allegedly throwing objects at President Ma
Ying-jeou (馬英九) during his speech at the Jingmei Human Rights Memorial and
Cultural Park late last year.
In their defense, Wang said his act of hurling a shoe at Ma was an act that
should be protected under the right to freedom of speech, while Lai claimed that
the papers he threw into the air were not directed at the president but at the
event’s organizers.
Anyone guilty of a malicious action intended to cause bodily harm should
rightfully be held accountable in accordance with the law. However, politicians
being heckled by members of the public is not an uncommon sight in a democracy.
Many may well recall the shoe-throwing faced by then-US president George W. Bush
in December 2008 at a news conference in Baghdad, Iraq. So long as protesters
harbor no intent to harm, government officials should be more open and receptive
to public criticism and outrage, rather than automatically resorting to legal
means that, in most cases — such as that of Wang and Lai — creates further
public resentment and sows discord between the government and the public.
Ma’s predecessor, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), once said that people
protesting and heckling politicians is a sign of a healthy democracy and even Ma
previously said that “a head of state being heckled is not a big deal in a
democratic society; there is no need to regard it as losing face.”
Many may recall how Ma, during his first presidential campaign in 2008, devoted
a segment of his campaign platform to human rights, pledging to amend the
Assembly and Parade Act and other laws if elected.
“There is a need to review the Assembly and Parade Act, the Civil Associations
Act (人民團體法) and related laws so they can be updated to reflect the passage of
time and be a positive force that propels society forward,” Ma said at the time.
Seven years have passed since Ma uttered those words and, in view of the
indictment of Wang and Lai, it appears that the government still has lots to do
to realize this promise.
The indictment also brought to mind the ruling handed down by the Taiwan High
Court on April 8, 2010, finding Shih Ming-te (施明德) and 15 others responsible for
leading red-clad protesters in a rally to oust Chen in late 2006 not guilty of
violating the Assembly and Parade Act on the grounds that despite calls from
police to end the rally, it was unlikely that the thousands of protesters
participating could have dispersed in the amount of time allocated.
It seems paradoxical that those who led a large-scale illegal protest against
the government were acquitted of violating the Assembly and Parade Act, while
two elderly people who allegedly lobbed small objects at Ma were deemed guilty
by Taipei prosecutors of violating the same law.
These different interpretations of the law reinforce not only the public’s
perception that the judiciary applies double standards to those from the
pan-blue and pan-green camps, but also demonstrates that the outdated law is
itself riddled with problems.
|
