By
Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Sunday, Apr 26, 2009, Page 3
A
series of bills and amendments passed recently and touted as
progress in promoting human rights and tackling corruption
has some analysts concerned that the changes will do little
to improve the situation while distracting attention from
continuing human rights problems.
George Liu (劉志聰),
a researcher at the Center for Peace and Strategic Studies,
said the government and legislature were inconsistent on
their support for human rights.
“The legislature recently passed two UN covenants on human
rights, yet [there are concerns] about the actions of police
in clamping down on the public and infringing on civil
rights when Chinese negotiator Chen Yunlin [(陳雲林)
of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait]
was here,” he said.
On March 31, at the request of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九),
the legislature ratified the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and approved a statute
giving them legal force.
Liu said he welcomed reforms to improve human rights, but
was concerned by a lack of concrete results.
Shih Cheng-feng (施正鋒),
a professor of politics at Tamkang University, expressed
similar concerns, saying the covenants were being used to
“create a semblance of peace.”
It remains to be seen whether the covenants are implemented
effectively, Shih said, adding: “The Chinese Nationalist
Party [KMT] hasn’t changed a bit.”
CORRUPTION
Earlier this month, lawmakers passed legislation at Ma’s
behest that included amendments to the Act for the
Punishment of Corruption (貪污治罪條例),
which provides for further criminal charges against civil
servants who have been convicted of corruption if they fail
to account for any abnormally large increases in their
assets in the three years after the crime.
The version was altered from that proposed by the Executive
Yuan, which would have applied to all civil servants under
investigation for corruption.
A stricter version of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
would also have applied retroactively to all civil servants
who are required to declare assets under the Public
Functionary Disclosure Act (公職人員財產申報法)
and not just defendants found guilty of corruption.
But Shih called the amendments an example of showcase
legislation. Ma and the legislature had little choice but to
amend the anti-corruption law to appease the public, he
said, but they watered down the legislation to avoid landing
KMT members in trouble.
Nanhua University professor Wang Szu-wei (王思為)
said the legislative successes were an attempt to allay
public anger over government corruption and international
concerns that human rights are eroding under the Ma
administration.
Wang echoed those concerns, saying the administration may be
retrogressing toward the “liberal dictatorship” of
Singapore.
Liu said despite the president’s vows to establish clean
government, Ma had pinned the blame for corruption on the
former DPP administration, which indicated that his
statements were politically motivated.
But Tang Shao-cheng (湯紹成),
a researcher at National Chengchi University’s Institute of
International Relations, said he had no serious concerns
about the revised anti-corruption law.
The revision is necessary to prevent future cases like that
involving former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁),
Tang said.
PARADE LAW
Public pressure may also have led Ma’s administration to
pledge to “give the streets back to the people” by seeing
the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法)
amended.
The government has come under fire for allegedly using the
legislation to restrict freedom of assembly.
A row over the amendments broke out on Friday, when DPP
legislators boycotted a reading, bringing proceedings to a
halt for the entire day.
The DPP legislators were angered by the KMT caucus’ decision
to place the amendment on the day’s agenda ahead of less
controversial bills that concerned people’s livelihood and
would not require cross-party negotiations.
KMT legislators, for their part, accused the DPP of blocking
the bills scheduled for later in the day.
Liu said the DPP should offer a clear account of its
opposition to the amendments so the public would understand
the motivation for its boycott.
Shih, meanwhile, said he was worried that the amendments
would be a step backward in terms of freedom of assembly.
The amendments have been criticized by civic groups who say
they would not loosen police control over peaceful
demonstrations.
RESPONSIBLE OPPOSITION
Frank Liu (劉正山),
a professor at National Sun Yat-sen University’s Institute
of Political Science, said it was regrettable that the DPP
was consumed by infighting at a time when serious concerns
were being raised about the actions of the government and
legislature.
The party is not fulfilling its duty to monitor the KMT’s
political manipulation, he said.
The DPP must become a more responsible opposition party and
expose the threat of one-party rule, he said.
E-mail: