A Win for the NPP Is a Loss for Rule of Law in Taiwan

  A Win for the NPP Is a Loss for Rule of Law in Taiwan

China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan)

January 8, 2018

 Translation of an Excerpt

Huang Kuo-chang and other New Power Party (NPP) legislators assembled illegally on Ketalagan Boulevard in front of the Presidential Palace, protesting against the further revisions of the "Labor Standards Act," lasting nearly 60 hours. In accordance with Article 6 of the "Assembly and Demonstration Act," the areas surrounding the Presidential Palace are restricted zones; no assemblies or demonstrations may be held without a permit from the competent government agencies. The mere fact that Huang Kuo-chang et al. assembled and sat sit in in front of the Presidential Palace violated the law, but Taipei City police deliberately permitted Huang Kuo-chang et al. to remain in the restricted zones in front of the Presidential Palace for nearly 60 hours; it was an apparent act in contravention of their official duties.

Mayor Ko Wen-je of Taipei City could also be blamed to a high degree for handling the illegal act on the part of Huang Kuo-chang. Some questioned when the public earlier illegally assembled in the restricted zones, Taipei City police immediately dispelled them with force. However, this time the police "softened" vis-à-vis the NPP; we might as well repeal the provisions in the "Assembly and Demonstration Act" regarding the restricted zones.

The NPP’s “show in violation of the law” this time was in fact a show in an election campaign. The NPP knows that Taiwan's leftist thinking for safeguarding labor rights and interests is in vogue, especially for the young people it is even more attractive. The NPP utilized opposing the revision of the "Labor Standards Act" to stage the protest in front of the Presidential Palace so as to increase its media exposure; this was an investment with high cost-effectiveness, so why not?

What the public should ponder is does Taiwan need such a "hero" that tramples on the rule of law and harms the safety of the chief executive?

Attachment : none