Now we are into our fourth subsection discussing free speech and democratic process. If we recall, Taiwan has moved from authoritarian regime to a full-fledged democracy. For this process, it has taken quite so many years. Prior to 1987 before the Martial Law Decree was lifted, Taiwan was under a very severe authoritarian governance. Since 1987, Taiwan has moved to open elections, transparent political process, and all that. The transformation of Taiwan's political climate has resulted in also the implementation and enforcement of the free speech guaranteed in Article 11 of Taiwan's constitution, as well as Article 14 of the rights of free assembly. Now let us look into all these relevant developments, some into political process, some into constitutional decisions by the Constitutional Court. In 1986 and 1987, a few political developments critical to Taiwan's democracy happened. Democratic Progressive Party, DPP, the first political opposition, was formed in 1986, a year before the lift of Martial Law Decree. Back then, the forming of political party was something banned, not legally permitted. But the DPP was nevertheless formed and in a way tolerated by the regime. Also in the early 1990s, something that is very familiar for now was impossible back then, to voice for unification with China or to voice for independence of Taiwan. Both were not allowed back then. But today, you hear people freely expressing either unification with China, People's Republic of China, or wanting to be independent of its own. This development very much related to how we enforce, how we ensure, how we really guarantee free speech in Taiwan. These all come to the very first interpretation by Taiwan's Constitutional Court, Interpretation No. 445. There, the issue was about whether the provision in the Assembly and Parade Act constitutional or not. Back then, any parades, any public assemblies would have to apply first for permission. In this case, a few environmentalists and environmental NGOs, they tried to stage a demonstration. They blocked waste disposals from one city to another. In order to do so, they didn't apply the permit beforehand, and so these demonstrations, this blockage was banned by the Assembly and Parade Act then, and then they would have to be criminally responsible then. They petitioned to the court arguing that the Act was unconstitutional. In that decision, the court did for the very first time that the provision in the Assembly and Parade Act violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, as it authorized the competent authority to censor political speech prior to the issuance of our permit for assembly of parade. In that decision, the court said that the censorship would be jeopardize the fundamental freedom of free speech. The provisions then were unconstitutionally vague and they authorized the competent authority to look into what you are going to say, what you are going to do, and which certainly gives the authority a paramount power to decide what people would need to think, what people would take any action of their own free will, and that's not okay in our constitutional regime. For you to reflect further, will you be surprised that the very first decision to open up the political sphere to allow all individuals have freedom of assembly in Taiwan was from a environmental case. Why environmentalists, environmental groups, when they try to advocate for their causes, they try to challenge the Assembly or Parade Act. Not the political movement but the environmental movement. Do you know anything about Taiwan's political and social movements back then in the 1980s Not now. So J.Y. interpretation number 445 by the Constitutional Court guarantees free speech, free assembly of Taiwanese people. Ever since then, Taiwan has gradually democratized and moved to an open and free society. In 1999, Taiwan has been rated as free by Freedom House and since then Taiwan has been always rated as free. Also in 2000, Taiwan has witnessed the first transfer of government power peacefully from the longtime ruling party, the Kuomintang, the KMT to the first opposition, the DPP. Remember that DPP, the Democratic Progressive Party was even not a legal party in 1987. See how much through 10 years progress we have made. Taiwan was given again a top score in freedom of expression and belief and association of organizational rights in 2019. All these scores and ratings say so much about the protection of the constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of assembly. Yet, there are remaining problems in the Assembly Act and the protected scope of free speech and freedom of assembly in our constitution. In 2008, there was this the Wild Strawberry Movement in the context of a Chinese authority visit to Taiwan. In 2008, Beijing sent Chen Yunlin, the chairperson of China's Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait to Taiwan for negotiations and possibly some collaborations on the both side. Because of these economic developments, because of these Cross-Strait talks were not entirely open and people were worried, and particularly young students were worried. Then through the mobile phones, through the Internet connections, the protesters, mostly young students, quickly gathered in the front of the government buildings without any permission and then yelling their concerns and their opinions. Six years down the road, there's also again, a very big movement, mostly again by students, the so-called Sunflower Student Movement. It happened very quickly when the students learn the possibilities of legislators in the legislative session and possibly passing the negotiated trade agreements across the Strait between Taiwan and China. As students worried about the possibilities of these negotiations that might jeopardize their future economic opportunities and all other impacts. Again, through Facebook, through Internet, through a lot of communications, mobile phones, students quickly gathered to the legislative Yuan without prior application of any permit, any approval. There you gathered a very important question that was not decided by the previous interpretation number 445 is whether if it's out of emergency, is out of some urgency, is out of instant mobile connections that some of the protesters gathered instantly in any location and they do not have time applying for any permit. Should this kind of assembly be seen as illegal and criminally punishable? Or should they be allowed since people sometimes in urgent situations also need to express in collectivity their opinion. That was the important issue decided by J.Y. Interpretation No. 718 in 2014. In this decision, the court first elaborate why Constitution would need to protect free speech, freedom of assembly, and the court argued that Article 14 of the Constitution provides that people shall have the freedom of assembly. The purpose to guarantee freedom of assembly is to safeguard people's peaceful expression of opinion by collective action, so as to communicate and dialogue with society, with the government, and to try to influence the possible laws or policies. This freedom of assembly, free speech is based on the idea of popular sovereignty. After all, it's we, the people, forming the state, it's we, the people of the society, so we all have a say, we have a part in the collective policy-making. It's very important for the society, for the democracy to guarantee people's fundamental freedom of opinion expression, and the country would enact a law and formulate a system in such a way as to enable the participant in any assembly, in any open demonstrations to exercise their freedom of assembly without fear. In other words, when people feel like to go out and express their opinions, provide their critique to any present policies or law, they should be able to do that without fear. This concern of fear of the people to go out to express their opinion, I think, was an important, essential part of this decision. Even though the law then have relaxed the period of application for urgent assemblies and demonstrations, still, prior application is required. For the Wild Strawberry students, for the Sunflower students, even the law was unlike before, have much more leeway for them to apply for approval, for their assembly, for their demonstration. But still, it was so urgent, it happened so quickly that students simultaneously learned about all this, and they got onto the legislative Yuan, they got onto the executive Yuan. So the court urge that regarding the incidental assembly and demonstrations, prior application of the approval was still required by the law. But the requirement imposed by the law should be then read into the protection of people's fundamental right of freedom. They should not be deemed as a ground for further criminal offenses. That's how the court guaranteed the so-called simultaneous or incidental assembly or demonstration. In other words, approval system would not be applicable and would not be required for incidental assembly or demonstration. Because of this interpretation, the Wild Strawberry students, the Sunflower students then would not be criminally fined, and their protection of free speech, their protection of freedom of assembly was really guaranteed. To reflect further, I would like to ask you to think about how essential is free speech to democracy, how essential, particularly free speech, to young generation? Are you surprised by the very fact that the most recent political movements in Taiwan are often done by the students? Young students gather through their mobile phones and through Internet, through their Facebook, and to incidentally, collectively expressing their opinions. Do you agree with the court that these incidental, these urgent expression of the opinions should be guaranteed? There's some further readings in our subsections provided for you to dig out further.
