|
|
|
You've Been Interrogated!
Here Comes Taiwan's Green Terror! |
|
|
With the election counting down, the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen has stepped up efforts to suppress free speech. Recently, many people were interrogated by the police simply for criticizing the government and sharing Facebook posts. Even a university professor was investigated by the police.
(Photo from: United Daily News) |
|
|
Likes on Unproven Posts Bring on Police Inquiries
United Daily News,
January 4, 2020
As the January 11 election day approaches, more and more citizens have been questioned by the police simply because they had privately or publicly shared posts that contained unproven news or content criticizing President Tsai Ing-wen’s policies.
The Kuomintang (KMT) invited 15 victims to testify the unfortunate fact that the Tsai administration is undermining freedom of speech and communication privacy. It is suspected that top authorities are using performance pressure to make investigation authorities cooperate.
Citizen A in Kaohsiung merely shared unproven information on a legal case concerning Legislator Kao Chin Su-mei on Facebook and was inquired by the police. One may ask why the government is desperately investigating in citizens sharing posts on social media and not dealing with corrupted former President Chen Shui-bian outside of the prison doors?
Another citizen B had the police rang the doorbell in the morning of December 31st, claiming that he had violated the “Social Order Maintenance Act” by sharing fake news on his Facebook. These incidents reveal obvious flaws in the questioning procedure, including the fact that citizen B did not receive a summon prior to the police inquiry. After being questioned that day, citizen B called a friend and both noticed a significant echo even though neither had their speakers on. Suspecting that his phone call was being monitored, he immediately hung up and felt tremendous phycological pressure.
Furthermore, citizen C in New Taipei City shared a source indicating that Central Election Commission (CEC) arbitrarily deleted ballot notifications. Inside the post he shared, it did state that this information is false; regardless, the police still summoned him for a written statement. Citizen D from Hsinchu also got summoned for questioning two times in three days merely because he sent an emoji on a fake weddings news concerning the DPP Legislator Tsai Yi-yu and Yang Hui-ju, a controversial internet expert who is under investigation for leading an Internets army.
Citizen E from Chiayi states that he was also questioned by the police without a summon. He was accused of violating the “Social Order Maintenance Act” for spreading fake news on Facebook and was denied a copy of his own statement. While various citizens were summoned by the police, why aren’t the internet army arrested?
Chou Hsi-wei, a KMT member and leader of an anti-defamation team, says that most of these summoned citizens simply reposted an article on social media; however, these case investigations have even led police officers to travel from southern cities to northern cities and vice-versa. It is obvious that the Tsai administration is undermining freedom of speech to eliminate opposing voices. It is a great concern that only supporters of KMT presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu are being investigated while the case of Yang Hui-ju’s Internet army has been stagnant.
According to Chou, the KMT has assembled a consultant group consisting of 300 lawyers, retired police officers and judges to protect citizens who are unrightfully summoned and questioned. If presidential candidate Han becomes president, he will also vindicate these cases and investigate into Tsai government’s violation of constitution and ill-suited policies.
KMT spokesperson Wang Hong-wei mentioned the fact that these victims are widespread throughout Taiwan. During intensive investigations, one victim was summoned two times and another family three times. With the police department already so occupied, why is there plentiful time to question citizens throughout the country? Could it be that Tsai administration is launching “Green Terror” in order to win the election?
From: https://udn.com/news/story/6656/4267065
|
|
|
Notwithstanding public criticism, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) passed the Anti-Infiltration Act, which has been criticized as "Green Terror." Members of the Kuomintang (KMT) Caucus of the Legislative Yuan wore black facial masks in protest.
(Photo from: United Daily News) |
|
|
What Kind of Government Takes Pleasure in Accusing Its People?
United Daily News, January 3, 2020
The year 2020 opened with a disturbing set of images when on the first day we saw faces of horrified civilians on televised news, all of whom had recently been harassed by the police. It featured a white-haired grandmother in Taoyuan, terrified by an evening summons from the police. We also saw a newly retired woman named Chen, who was interviewed by the "electronic police" because of a reposted message on social media—she was escorted to a heavily guarded government office to be interviewed and was asked directly if she was a fan of Kuomintang (KMT) presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu. Taichung's Ms. Lee claimed that her mother only reposted a message on Facebook about how to cast a vote which garnered only four “likes.” For this, it required a police interview for violating the Law on Maintaining Social Order.
What kind of government would take pleasure in informing on and scaring its people? These police state scenes have disappeared for 20 years in Taiwan but are now resurfacing only when President Tsai Ing-wen is seeking re-election and the DPP wants to maintain "full governance.” This time around, the state has aimed the "blade of public power" directly at the chests of ordinary people, forcing them to submit and stay silent. Does a government like this still deserve the support of the people of Taiwan?
The DPP administration having forcefully passed the anti-infiltration law, it looks as if green terror is bound to be grimmer than the white terror. For example, when National Taiwan University Professor Su Hung-dah criticized on his Facebook page the policy of moving the National Palace Museum south, he was taken in for an interview. What Su expressed was a personal statement, but other citizens are being questioned simply by reposting in their social networks, harassed by the police. The government is now not only suppressing freedom of speech but even forcing people into self-censorship. How is it that Tsai Ing-wen still has the nerve to name democracy as one of her core values?
Overnight, countless civilians have been questioned and reported, obviously as the result of orders from high levels of the police. It seems that "catching false news" is now regarded as a metric for performance, prompting police stations around the country to increase their “vigilance.” The reason the senior police have been so proactive must be the result of pressure from the justice and internal ministries, pushing this agenda. However, they probably could not have predicted that such a harsh policy, this disruption to the people, would garner more negative effects and discontent from the people.
For example, a citizen of Douliu City, Yunlin received a notice summoning him for questioning from the Tainan Police Station the day following his comments criticizing the anti-infiltration law on Facebook. At the same time, some people in the Xiluo Township area and southern Taiwan received similar summons from the New Taipei police and Taipei police respectively. Will this kind of cross-region competition for police departments be happening in full swing without instruction from leadership? For those receiving summons in jurisdictions across counties and cities, surely, they will hold the government in contempt.
President Tsai talked about the anti-infiltration in her New Year Day address, boasting that it would not affect freedom and not violate human rights. In fact, at the same that she was making these claims and guarantees, police departments under her administration were abusing their authority by accusing and arresting common people in competitions, “checking the water meter" at the homes of kind citizens and posting summons. What is even more ironic is that in the past, the DPP regarded the "Social Order Maintenance Law" as the remnant of the "Police Regulations” and advocated that it should be abolished. However, once in power, it glorified the law and took pleasure in pursuing citizens like rabbits. Tsai Ing-wen's "guarantee” juxtaposed against the fear of ordinary people being chased down by the law—it all reads like a collection of lies.
When the police and law enforcement agencies compete to question ordinary citizens about their online communications, it inevitably leads to greater doubt in society. First, the police have chosen not to pursue criminals, but ordinary people. Is this not misconduct and a serious misjudgment of priorities? Second, when the police sent summons, they did not inform the involved parties of their legal rights, which caused the public to panic. This is a serious infraction of law enforcement procedures. Finally, the telecommunications police cannot interrogate people according to law, but some have questioned citizens with regard to their party affiliation and if they are fans of Han, which seriously oversteps into partisan action.
What kind of government would be happy to sue, question, and intimidate people? Other than inhumanity and injustice, it is difficult to think of other reasons. Political parties that treat people as criminals should be cast aside.
From: https://udn.com/news/story/7338/4264585
|
|
|
Voters Should Defend Democracy and Regain Free Speech in 2020
The Storm Media Editorial, January 1, 2020
To no one's surprise that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) with an absolute majority in the Legislative Yuan passed the "Anti-Infiltration Act" in the third reading at the end of 2019, claiming that "Safeguarding democracy is an urgent matter." Yet came the stunning news that Professor. Su Hung-dah of National Taiwan University disclosed his encounter of "check the water meter" (alluded to a police investigation) at year-end and asked: "Who's clamping down on Taiwan’s freedom of speech?"
For the 30-plus years of democracy and opening up, apart from the libel case, no one has been "criminalized" because of different political opinions. Mocking the president or criticizing policies is a common part of Taiwan’s democratic life. This most common "little happiness of democracy" disappeared "quietly" in 2019. Or the word "quietly" may not be accurate, because it is impossible to calculate exactly how many citizens have a similar experience to Su's? And for those who have gone through this situation, such a change can be earthshaking. Questioning by the police, interrogation by the prosecution, or cyber-reconnaissance by the Investigation Bureau because of the expression of one's opinion has been rare in the past 30 years.
Such a change began with the defeat of the DPP in the 2018 local elections. . The DPP blamed "China's intervention" and "media framing" for its failure. It is ridiculous that law enforcement agencies could not apprehend any "foreign cyber warrior", but an uncountable number of Taiwanese were interrogated just because of their posts on the LINE group or Facebook, under the "Social Order Maintenance Act" (SOMA) As the 2020 election approaches, "Internet surveillance" has become the priority of "election security," differed from 'bribery and hacking investigations' of the past.
According to Professor Su, he received a notice from the Police Department in December 2019, inquiring about his post on Facebook in November 2018. In the post, he shared an interview with Chen Chi-nan, former director of the Palace Museum (NPM) by the
Liberty Times, and Professor Su left a comment: "Who's eliminating our Palace Museum? The DPP Cultural Revolution you don't know."
If Chen can talk hastily about the moving the museum south, why on earth can't citizens criticize his public statements or ideas? Can't the policy of the Palace Museum be discussed? "Eliminating" may be a loaded term, but which law prohibits people from expressing his/her dissatisfaction or dissent in "loaded- terms"? Or is the "DPP Cultural Revolution" too harsh to the DPP? The DPP is so apprehensive of Chinese culture as to the extent of hatred. Su merely voiced his personal feelings, and who could say it was inappropriate or unlawful? Since when did our folks even lose their right to grieve?
Even more outrageous was that the Investigation Bureau asked the police to investigate "comments" made one year ago. First, the "Social Order Maintenance Act."(SOMA) punishes only act, not speech. What the Tsai government has done with the SOMA set a precedent. Second, Article 31 of the "SOMA" stipulates " violations of this Act for over two months, the police shall not interrogate, punish, or transfer to the court." The police officers cannot read the legal provisions? The most absurd was that after Su's lawyer cautioned that the law forbids question or punish the behavior over one year ago, the police said that he would report to the Investigation Bureau. However, the Investigation Bureau demanded "continuing investigation." This meant that the Investigation Bureau ignored the law and even enjoyed the privilege of "violating the law" to require police officers to interrogate against the law!
We would like to ask: "What is the use of laws that cannot protect the rights and interests of the people?" Regardless of police, prosecutors, or the Investigation Bureau, they are all "state apparatus" that execute public power under the law. "If they turn a blind eye to the law. Would public power not become a tool that suppresses the rights and interests of the people?"
This is the "ruling hallmark" of the Tsai administration. The DPP could not remove the Palace Museum, but in the guise of safeguarding democracy, it is demolishing the most important pillar of democracy-freedom of speech! What a terrible ruling thinking and stratagems! Su should sue the police for violating the law and claim compensation from the state. This government has no capacity for rational debate. Democracy and freedom do not fall from the sky. Ten days later, we must use votes to regain our free speech.
From: https://www.storm.mg/article/2128548
|
|
|
December 31: The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) strongly mobilized its members to pass the “Anti-Infiltration Act” through the third reading in the Legislative Yuan. The law expressly forbids accepting instructions, commission, funds to make political contributions or run in elections. Violators may be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to NT$10 million (about US$334,000). Legal professionals are worried that adopting such provisions are like blank checks which allow the government to launch investigations against individuals arbitrarily.
January 1: The campaign of Kuomintang (KMT) presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu released a four-minute video resembling the National Security Bureau monitoring public opinion not only on public news and Facebook groups but also closed LINE groups and personal Facebook accounts. It is suspected that an upset intelligence official leaked the information, like “Taiwan’s Snowden.”
January 2: Chief of the General Staff Shen Yi-ming took a Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter to fly to a radar station in Yilan to extend greetings to military personnel there. Unfortunately, the helicopter crashed in New Taipei, with eight of 13 officers, including Shen, killed, and five injured. Shen was the highest-ranking Taiwanese military personnel to have passed away in office. President Tsai Ing-wen ordered all national defense and military agencies to fly the national flag at half-mast in mourning.
January 2: According to the Ministry of Labor, large layoffs by number of people and cases reached record highs. As of November 2019, some 15,000 workers were laid off, which is a record high in seven years. In addition, as of December 2019, workers with unpaid leave (reduced work hours) totaled over 3,000, which is also a record high last year.
January 3: In an interview with Deutsche Welle, Lin Ching-yi, campaign spokesperson for President Tsai Ing-wen, expounded the DPP’s Taiwan independence platform as forbidding support for unification because it is treason. The statement caused much controversy. Even former President Chen Shui-bian found Lin’s statement to be excessive and contrary to the Constitution and free speech. Lin later resigned from her spokesperson post.
January 4: An unknown pneumonia virus broke out in Wuhan, Hubei Province, in mainland China. As of January 3, there are 44 known cases, including 11 severe cases, and the pathogen has not been ruled out as a new virus. Hong Kong also reported an unidentified virus for travelers from Wuhan. Taiwan’s Center for Disease Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, announced that it will start boarding inspection for 12 weekly direct flights with Wuhan, in order to prevent the epidemic from entering Taiwan.
|
|
|
Taiwan Weekly is a newsletter released every week by Fair Winds Foundation, Taipei Forum, and Association of Foreign Relations that provides coverage and perspectives into the latest developments in Taiwan.
The conclusions and recommendations of any Taiwan Weekly article are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the institutions that publish the newsletter.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 | | |
| |
|
|
|
|
