PDF(2.7mb) - 國家政策研究基金會

Revision of the Assembly and Demonstration Act 115
to ask for protection, if needed, or assistance in maintaining
order. Each of the three approaches is supported
by advocates for the proposed act.
The existing law fallows the Coercive notification
approach and requires organizers to apply for approval.
Statistically, applications in the past were overwhelmingly
granted but the authorities have the last say on
assemblies and/or demonstrations. They may turn down
the applications under the pretext of maintenance of
social order or at their own discretion.
Civic bodies and legislators support voluntary notification,
while the administration favors coercive notification,
which is strongly opposed by human right
activists.
2. Veto Power
Can assemblies or demonstrations be banned? If
so, for what reasons? Relevant stipulations are found in
Articles 4 and 11 of another proposed act. As a matter
of fact, voluntary notification takes away the veto power
of the law enforcement authorities. Only when two
or more groups are going to demonstrate at the same
location at the same time can the authorities mediate to
prevent clashes. Coercive notification and the approval
mechanism stipulated in the current act permit the authorities
to veto assemblies and/or demonstrations.
Human rights advocates criticize the coercive notification
mechanism for “appearing to protect the right to
protest but providing an excuse for the authorities to
ban a demonstration that is against their interest.” The
alliance of civic bodies has proposed the version that
gives the authorities no excuse to rule out a demonstration.
So have parliamentarians of the ruling Kuomintang
and the opposition Democratic Progressive Party.
However, the administration insists on coercive notification.
3. Power of Modification and Intervention
Can the police modify or intervene in the scheduled
assemblies and demonstrations? Article 14 of the
current act endows the police with the power to apply
“necessary limitations” to assemblies and/or demonstrations
in nearly every aspect. According to Article 12
of the current act, the police have to inform the organizers
of any modification to be made in 36 hours before
an assembly or a demonstration is to take place. Otherwise,
the public meeting can be held as scheduled.
Actually, the current act gives police a broad power to
intervene in any public meeting. Many civil bodies as
well as legislators complain that the current act undermines
constitutional freedom of assembly. The alliance
of civic bodies has proposed to leave the police no
room to modify the plan of a demonstration. Lawmakers
support the proposal but the administration wants
the plan to be reviewed by the law enforcement authorities,
who may make modifications in advance and
intervene while a public meeting is under way.
4. Power to Call off Public Meetings
The current act allows the law enforcement authorities
to withdraw the permission they have given to
a public meeting. Its Article 25 allows the police to
“warn against, and stop or dissolve by order,” any unauthorized
public meeting, albeit its Article 26 declares
the principle that the authorities should not violate the
rights and interests of those citizens assembled. Most
advocates find Article 26 toothless and insubstantial.
Many argue that the police are authorized to maintain
order when violence and irregularities occur anywhere
at any time and it is therefore totally unnecessary to
single out police control at public meetings in the current
act. But the administration has made no fundamental
change in the relevant stipulations in the current
act with merely wording changed. All other versions
either remove its Articles 25 and 26 or offer detailed
provisos for when and how police control can be enforced
and a public meeting can be called off.
5. Applications for Review
According to the current act, organizers can apply
for review when their applications for public meetings
are turned down or their plans are modified by the police.
Its Article 16 stipulates applications for review can