A Clarification on the Security Arrangement during the Visit of Mr. Chen Yunlin

National Police Agency

A Clarification on the Security Arrangement during the Visit of Mr. Chen Yunlin (Chairman of the Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait) and Other Delegates to Taiwan

1.How many police officers and protesters were injured during several of the clashes when police were protecting the security of Chairman Chen and other delegates during their visit, Nov.3-7, 2008?

During the clashes some protesters threw rocks and even Molotov cocktails at the police. Although policemen were outfitted with protective helmets and shields, 150 police officers sustained injuries in comparison with 30 protesters and reporters. This police/civilian injury ratio indicates the difficulties that law enforcement officers faced in maintaining order. In such melees, there will inevitably be some injuries sustained by violent protesters and damages inflicted on their private property.

2.Why did the police deploy 7,000 officers to protect the security of Chairman Chen and the other delegates during their visit to Taiwan?

The 7000 police officers were tasked with maintaining public order at the Taoyuan International Airport, the area around the Grand Hotel (which sits on a hill surrounded by spacious parkland, completely isolated from other buildings in Taipei) and other locations visited by the chairman and delegation.
Under normal circumstances, a force of a few hundred policemen is sufficient to provide the security necessary for such a delegation. However, circumstances were far from normal. Shortly before Chairman Chen’s visit, the vice chairman of ARATS was unexpectedly besieged by a group of unruly protesters in Southern Taiwan’s Tainan City and was injured in a jostling match with Tainan City Councilor and member of the DPP, Wang Ding-yu. In addition, the day before Chairman Chen’s arrival on Nov.3, 2008, some DPP politicians were offering cash prizes to anyone who succeeded in hitting Chairman Chen with eggs. Therefore, the need for tighter security during his visit was certainly clear and imperative.

3.Did the police reportedly use heavy-handed tactics on protestors to prevent the delegation from seeing the flags of Taiwan or Tibet? Do these tactics meet the principle of proportionality?

No government officials gave the order to prohibit citizens from hoisting or carrying the flags of the Republic of China (Taiwan) or Tibet. Only a few people who were carrying flags or other banners that entered into restricted areas were persuaded to leave by the police. Over the past eight years, most of the street demonstrations in Taiwan have been peaceful. Our police have always shown great restraint in dealing with peaceful demonstrators. Law enforcement agents only took action against individual protesters in rare instances when demonstrators resorted to violence. During the demonstration on Nov.6, 2008, some protesters hurled Molotov cocktails or stones at the police, in which most of the injuries sustained were by policemen and not protestors. Apprehending violent protesters into police vans was necessary in order to prevent an escalation of public disorder and violence.

4.Why did the police prohibit citizens from displaying the flags of Taiwan and prevent a record store from playing music?

No government officials ordered police officers to restrict citizens from displaying any type of flag or banner, which is a constitutional right protected by the government. Only a few citizens that were carrying flags and who entered into restricted areas were required to be cleared from the premises. Unfortunately, during these exchanges it was inevitable that some of the flags may have been damaged (However, in truth only a few flagpoles were broken; none of the flags themselves were damaged.).

Furthermore, freedom of expression is strongly protected in Taiwan. On Nov. 5, 2008, police officers entered a record store in response to complaints by neighborhood residents that the store was playing music too loudly. The police, without knowing what music was being played, only asked the clerk to turn the volume down, and didn’t ask the clerk to close the store.

5.Does the government need to organize an impartial and independent commission to investigate the clashes between law enforcement officers and protesters? In terms of riot control, do the police require extra training?

Clashes between police and protesters as well as other instances of violence that occurred during Chairman Chen’s visit are currently being investigated by the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office, which is an independent agency of justice. The results of the investigation will soon be made public. In addition, the Control Yuan, an independent watchdog branch of the government, is investigating the administrative aspects of our police officers’ response to the protestors. The creation of an independent investigative commission may, therefore, be unnecessary and perhaps inappropriate because without a clear legal mandate, any such move may be interpreted as an intervention in ongoing procedures of justice.

Of course, in review of the police handling of these incidents as well as taking into account the opinions from our citizens, the police should be required to further improve their technique for crowd control.

6.Does the Assembly and March Act need to be revised?

Reforming the Assembly and March Act was a plank in President Ma Ying-jeou’s presidential campaign earlier this year, in which he continues to support such reforms. The Legislative Yuan recently held a public hearing, attended by representatives of various social groups, on how the Act should be revised; as part of the legislative deliberative process. Hopefully, a consensus on revising the Act will soon be achieved, and the revisions can take effect as planned.

Attachment : none