PDF(2.7mb) - 國家政策研究基金會

114 Taiwan Development Perspectives 2009
Introduction
The Assembly and Demonstration Act was promulgated
in 1988. The purpose of the act is to “protect
the freedom of the people to assemble and demonstrate”
on the one hand and to “maintain social order”
on the other. The legislation has been criticized for
curbing freedom of speech in the name of order maintenance.
Although it was amended twice in 1992 and
2002, calls for further revision have continued.
Amendment advocates consider the act overly and restrictive
for assemblies and demonstrations because
they may be called off by the law enforcement authorities.
The act is considered out of date.
An up-to-date assembly and demonstration act is
less a theoretical reflection than a realistic necessity.
Controversy occurs each time a demonstration takes
place, be it organized by civic bodies or political parties.
Demonstrators believe they are exercising their constitutional
right, while the police can crack down on them
in line with the 1988 act. This discrepancy causes social
conflict and undermines the legitimacy of the government.
Policing action against mass rallies in Taipei triggered
social unrest in early November 2008. In the
face of an outcry for injustice, the ruling Kuomintang
started pushing for another revision of the 1988 act to
close the gap between the law and the public expectation
of assemblies and demonstrations. The revision
may change the relationship between the people and
their government. At least, it will reshape the way of
political expression in Taiwan.
This article summarizes and analyzes the most
significant differences among several amendment versions.
They include the proposals from an alliance of
civic bodies, Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers,
their Kuomintang counterparts, and the government
(Executive Yuan).
Different Views
Fundamental differences among the various versions
of a new assembly and demonstration act lie in
what function that law should perform. Should the law
serve to safeguard freedom to speech, maintain social
order, or reduce the labor of the police? Various stakeholders
in the legislation demand a specific set of proposes
in their versions of the draft act. The administration
stresses the role of the police in the maintenance of
law and order. Civic bodies call for more freedom to
demonstrate and want to eliminate as many restrictions
as possible. Parliamentarians of the ruling and opposition
parties try to strike a balance to find a merging
margin in the conservative-liberal spectrum. Significant
differences are listed in Table 1. They are observed in
the following points:
1. Principle
The Executive Yuan stresses regulation in matters
pertaining to assemblies and demonstrations. Organizers
have to apply to the law enforcement authorities for
approval of, or give them notice in advance for, assemblies
and/or demonstrations. This principle of regulation
is reflected in Articles 1, 5, 8 and 9 of the government-proposed
Assembly and Demonstration Act. The
authorities can turn down the applications and any assembly
or demonstration without previous approval is
considered unlawful. In that case, the police are authorized
to disperse the assembled crowd by force, if necessary.
On the other hand, the requirement of previous notification
guarantees the right to assemble and demonstrate.
There are two types of advance notification, coercive
and voluntary. Coercive notification requires
organizers to notify the authorities in advance; and if no
notification is presented, assemblies and/or demonstrations
are unlawful. On receipt of notice, the authorities
may tell organizers not to hold an assembly or demonstration
if it is considered likely to cause social unrest.
In other words, the authorities are given the chance to
veto any assembly or demonstration. Voluntary notification
requires no obligation on the part of organizers
to give notice to the authorities. Demonstrators may
take to the streets freely. Notice is given the authorities