COMMENTS ON THE HOOLIGAN AND SEDITION LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) I. Hooliganism: Historical Background Under the Japanese occupation, Taiwan had a law governing the elimination of vagabonds. It had been promulgated by the Japanese governor in 1906 and consisted of five articles. Its purpose was to eliminate the population of unemployed wanderers who were considered to be a threat to peace and public order. After the Kuomintang government was firmly established on the island, the Taiwan Provincial government and the Taiwan Peace Preservation Headquarters jointly issued Measures for the Elimination of Hooligans during the Period of Martial Law in Taiwan Province. 1/ A new law with the same title was enacted and issued by the Executive Yuan three years later. 2/ This second law had 11 articles and remained in effect until the current law was adopted in July 1985. 3/ Among the reasons cited for the need to issue a new law last year was the fact that on Taiwan there are two cities considered to be special municipalities equal to provinces administratively, Taipei and Kaohsiung. The Measures enacted in the 1950's, since they were issued by the provincial government of Taiwan, might be construed as ineffective in those _______________ 1/ Apr. 29, 1952, mentioned in Tsai Tun-ming, "How to Delineate the Scope of Hooligans: the Subject Matter of Legislation on Hooligans," Shih pao tza chih [China Times Magazine] (Taipei), June 12, 1985, at 82. 2/ Oct. 24, 1955, see Executive Yuan, "Explanation of the Draft Regulation", 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan] 34 (June 29, 1985). 3/ Regulations Governing the Exposure and Elimination of Hooligans During the Period of Mobilization Against and Suppression of Disorder, adopted by Legislative Yuan, July 10, 1985, promulgated July 19, 1985. For legislative history, see 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan], June 29, July 3, July 6, July 10, & July 24, 1985.COMMENTS ON THE HOOLIGAN AND SEDITION LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) I. Hooliganism: Historical Background Under the Japanese occupation, Taiwan had a law governing the elimination of vagabonds. It had been promulgated by the Japanese governor in 1906 and consisted of five articles. Its purpose was to eliminate the population of unemployed wanderers who were considered to be a threat to peace and public order. After the Kuomintang government was firmly established on the island, the Taiwan Provincial government and the Taiwan Peace Preservation Headquarters jointly issued Measures for the Elimination of Hooligans during the Period of Martial Law in Taiwan Province. 1/ A new law with the same title was enacted and issued by the Executive Yuan three years later. 2/ This second law had 11 articles and remained in effect until the current law was adopted in July 1985. 3/ Among the reasons cited for the need to issue a new law last year was the fact that on Taiwan there are two cities considered to be special municipalities equal to provinces administratively, Taipei and Kaohsiung. The Measures enacted in the 1950's, since they were issued by the provincial government of Taiwan, might be construed as ineffective in those _______________ 1/ Apr. 29, 1952, mentioned in Tsai Tun-ming, "How to Delineate the Scope of Hooligans: the Subject Matter of Legislation on Hooligans," Shih pao tza chih [China Times Magazine] (Taipei), June 12, 1985, at 82. 2/ Oct. 24, 1955, see Executive Yuan, "Explanation of the Draft Regulation", 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan] 34 (June 29, 1985). 3/ Regulations Governing the Exposure and Elimination of Hooligans During the Period of Mobilization Against and Suppression of Disorder, adopted by Legislative Yuan, July 10, 1985, promulgated July 19, 1985. For legislative history, see 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan], June 29, July 3, July 6, July 10, & July 24, 1985.COMMENTS ON THE HOOLIGAN AND SEDITION LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) I. Hooliganism: Historical Background Under the Japanese occupation, Taiwan had a law governing the elimination of vagabonds. It had been promulgated by the Japanese governor in 1906 and consisted of five articles. Its purpose was to eliminate the population of unemployed wanderers who were considered to be a threat to peace and public order. After the Kuomintang government was firmly established on the island, the Taiwan Provincial government and the Taiwan Peace Preservation Headquarters jointly issued Measures for the Elimination of Hooligans during the Period of Martial Law in Taiwan Province. 1/ A new law with the same title was enacted and issued by the Executive Yuan three years later. 2/ This second law had 11 articles and remained in effect until the current law was adopted in July 1985. 3/ Among the reasons cited for the need to issue a new law last year was the fact that on Taiwan there are two cities considered to be special municipalities equal to provinces administratively, Taipei and Kaohsiung. The Measures enacted in the 1950's, since they were issued by the provincial government of Taiwan, might be construed as ineffective in those _______________ 1/ Apr. 29, 1952, mentioned in Tsai Tun-ming, "How to Delineate the Scope of Hooligans: the Subject Matter of Legislation on Hooligans," Shih pao tza chih [China Times Magazine] (Taipei), June 12, 1985, at 82. 2/ Oct. 24, 1955, see Executive Yuan, "Explanation of the Draft Regulation", 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan] 34 (June 29, 1985). 3/ Regulations Governing the Exposure and Elimination of Hooligans During the Period of Mobilization Against and Suppression of Disorder, adopted by Legislative Yuan, July 10, 1985, promulgated July 19, 1985. For legislative history, see 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan], June 29, July 3, July 6, July 10, & July 24, 1985.COMMENTS ON THE HOOLIGAN AND SEDITION LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) I. Hooliganism: Historical Background Under the Japanese occupation, Taiwan had a law governing the elimination of vagabonds. It had been promulgated by the Japanese governor in 1906 and consisted of five articles. Its purpose was to eliminate the population of unemployed wanderers who were considered to be a threat to peace and public order. After the Kuomintang government was firmly established on the island, the Taiwan Provincial government and the Taiwan Peace Preservation Headquarters jointly issued Measures for the Elimination of Hooligans during the Period of Martial Law in Taiwan Province. 1/ A new law with the same title was enacted and issued by the Executive Yuan three years later. 2/ This second law had 11 articles and remained in effect until the current law was adopted in July 1985. 3/ Among the reasons cited for the need to issue a new law last year was the fact that on Taiwan there are two cities considered to be special municipalities equal to provinces administratively, Taipei and Kaohsiung. The Measures enacted in the 1950's, since they were issued by the provincial government of Taiwan, might be construed as ineffective in those _______________ 1/ Apr. 29, 1952, mentioned in Tsai Tun-ming, "How to Delineate the Scope of Hooligans: the Subject Matter of Legislation on Hooligans," Shih pao tza chih [China Times Magazine] (Taipei), June 12, 1985, at 82. 2/ Oct. 24, 1955, see Executive Yuan, "Explanation of the Draft Regulation", 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan] 34 (June 29, 1985). 3/ Regulations Governing the Exposure and Elimination of Hooligans During the Period of Mobilization Against and Suppression of Disorder, adopted by Legislative Yuan, July 10, 1985, promulgated July 19, 1985. For legislative history, see 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan], June 29, July 3, July 6, July 10, & July 24, 1985.COMMENTS ON THE HOOLIGAN AND SEDITION LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) I. Hooliganism: Historical Background Under the Japanese occupation, Taiwan had a law governing the elimination of vagabonds. It had been promulgated by the Japanese governor in 1906 and consisted of five articles. Its purpose was to eliminate the population of unemployed wanderers who were considered to be a threat to peace and public order. After the Kuomintang government was firmly established on the island, the Taiwan Provincial government and the Taiwan Peace Preservation Headquarters jointly issued Measures for the Elimination of Hooligans during the Period of Martial Law in Taiwan Province. 1/ A new law with the same title was enacted and issued by the Executive Yuan three years later. 2/ This second law had 11 articles and remained in effect until the current law was adopted in July 1985. 3/ Among the reasons cited for the need to issue a new law last year was the fact that on Taiwan there are two cities considered to be special municipalities equal to provinces administratively, Taipei and Kaohsiung. The Measures enacted in the 1950's, since they were issued by the provincial government of Taiwan, might be construed as ineffective in those _______________ 1/ Apr. 29, 1952, mentioned in Tsai Tun-ming, "How to Delineate the Scope of Hooligans: the Subject Matter of Legislation on Hooligans," Shih pao tza chih [China Times Magazine] (Taipei), June 12, 1985, at 82. 2/ Oct. 24, 1955, see Executive Yuan, "Explanation of the Draft Regulation", 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan] 34 (June 29, 1985). 3/ Regulations Governing the Exposure and Elimination of Hooligans During the Period of Mobilization Against and Suppression of Disorder, adopted by Legislative Yuan, July 10, 1985, promulgated July 19, 1985. For legislative history, see 74 Li fa yuan kung pao [Gazette of the Legislative Yuan], June 29, July 3, July 6, July 10, & July 24, 1985.2 two cities. Another reason for the legislation in 1985 is the growing concern, both inside Taiwan and outside, with guarantees of human rights. The older laws had no provision for court adjudication. The new law can be seen as an improvement, as there is one point at which those accused as hooligans can have a court hearing. Current law Under the 1985 Regulations, the determination that a person is a hooligan, and thus to be handled under the separate, special procedure rather than as others accused of crimes, is not made by the court, but by the supreme security organ. In Taiwan at present this is the Taiwan Garrison Command Headquarters, a military organ. The label of hooligan can be applied to a person for three years, and such a person can be made to receive "assistance and guidance" (fu tau). The definition of who can be so labeled is however very vague. The sections of Article 2 of the Regulations specify that individuals over the age of 18 who commit certain offenses can be deemed to be hooligans. These offenses are all also included in the articles of the Criminal Code 4/ or other statutes as follows: §1: Organizing or participating in a group that sabotages social order-- Article 154. §2: Weapons offenses-- Regulations Governing the Control of Guns, Ammunition, Knives and Other Weapons. 5/ §3: Blackmail-- Articles 339, 346; Forcing others to act-- Article 304; Eating or drinking without pay-- Article 339. §4: Operating a gambling house-- Article 268; Prostitution offenses-- Article 231; Collecting debts by force-- Article 304. ----------------------- 4/ Promulgated Jan. 1, 1935, last revised Feb. 26, 1969. 5/ Supra note 1, at 53.2 two cities. Another reason for the legislation in 1985 is the growing concern, both inside Taiwan and outside, with guarantees of human rights. The older laws had no provision for court adjudication. The new law can be seen as an improvement, as there is one point at which those accused as hooligans can have a court hearing. Current law Under the 1985 Regulations, the determination that a person is a hooligan, and thus to be handled under the separate, special procedure rather than as others accused of crimes, is not made by the court, but by the supreme security organ. In Taiwan at present this is the Taiwan Garrison Command Headquarters, a military organ. The label of hooligan can be applied to a person for three years, and such a person can be made to receive "assistance and guidance" (fu tau). The definition of who can be so labeled is however very vague. The sections of Article 2 of the Regulations specify that individuals over the age of 18 who commit certain offenses can be deemed to be hooligans. These offenses are all also included in the articles of the Criminal Code 4/ or other statutes as follows: §1: Organizing or participating in a group that sabotages social order-- Article 154. §2: Weapons offenses-- Regulations Governing the Control of Guns, Ammunition, Knives and Other Weapons. 5/ §3: Blackmail-- Articles 339, 346; Forcing others to act-- Article 304; Eating or drinking without pay-- Article 339. §4: Operating a gambling house-- Article 268; Prostitution offenses-- Article 231; Collecting debts by force-- Article 304. ----------------------- 4/ Promulgated Jan. 1, 1935, last revised Feb. 26, 1969. 5/ Supra note 1, at 53.2 two cities. Another reason for the legislation in 1985 is the growing concern, both inside Taiwan and outside, with guarantees of human rights. The older laws had no provision for court adjudication. The new law can be seen as an improvement, as there is one point at which those accused as hooligans can have a court hearing. Current law Under the 1985 Regulations, the determination that a person is a hooligan, and thus to be handled under the separate, special procedure rather than as others accused of crimes, is not made by the court, but by the supreme security organ. In Taiwan at present this is the Taiwan Garrison Command Headquarters, a military organ. The label of hooligan can be applied to a person for three years, and such a person can be made to receive "assistance and guidance" (fu tau). The definition of who can be so labeled is however very vague. The sections of Article 2 of the Regulations specify that individuals over the age of 18 who commit certain offenses can be deemed to be hooligans. These offenses are all also included in the articles of the Criminal Code 4/ or other statutes as follows: §1: Organizing or participating in a group that sabotages social order-- Article 154. §2: Weapons offenses-- Regulations Governing the Control of Guns, Ammunition, Knives and Other Weapons. 5/ §3: Blackmail-- Articles 339, 346; Forcing others to act-- Article 304; Eating or drinking without pay-- Article 339. §4: Operating a gambling house-- Article 268; Prostitution offenses-- Article 231; Collecting debts by force-- Article 304. ----------------------- 4/ Promulgated Jan. 1, 1935, last revised Feb. 26, 1969. 5/ Supra note 1, at 53.2 two cities. Another reason for the legislation in 1985 is the growing concern, both inside Taiwan and outside, with guarantees of human rights. The older laws had no provision for court adjudication. The new law can be seen as an improvement, as there is one point at which those accused as hooligans can have a court hearing. Current law Under the 1985 Regulations, the determination that a person is a hooligan, and thus to be handled under the separate, special procedure rather than as others accused of crimes, is not made by the court, but by the supreme security organ. In Taiwan at present this is the Taiwan Garrison Command Headquarters, a military organ. The label of hooligan can be applied to a person for three years, and such a person can be made to receive "assistance and guidance" (fu tau). The definition of who can be so labeled is however very vague. The sections of Article 2 of the Regulations specify that individuals over the age of 18 who commit certain offenses can be deemed to be hooligans. These offenses are all also included in the articles of the Criminal Code 4/ or other statutes as follows: §1: Organizing or participating in a group that sabotages social order-- Article 154. §2: Weapons offenses-- Regulations Governing the Control of Guns, Ammunition, Knives and Other Weapons. 5/ §3: Blackmail-- Articles 339, 346; Forcing others to act-- Article 304; Eating or drinking without pay-- Article 339. §4: Operating a gambling house-- Article 268; Prostitution offenses-- Article 231; Collecting debts by force-- Article 304. ----------------------- 4/ Promulgated Jan. 1, 1935, last revised Feb. 26, 1969. 5/ Supra note 1, at 53.2 two cities. Another reason for the legislation in 1985 is the growing concern, both inside Taiwan and outside, with guarantees of human rights. The older laws had no provision for court adjudication. The new law can be seen as an improvement, as there is one point at which those accused as hooligans can have a court hearing. Current law Under the 1985 Regulations, the determination that a person is a hooligan, and thus to be handled under the separate, special procedure rather than as others accused of crimes, is not made by the court, but by the supreme security organ. In Taiwan at present this is the Taiwan Garrison Command Headquarters, a military organ. The label of hooligan can be applied to a person for three years, and such a person can be made to receive "assistance and guidance" (fu tau). The definition of who can be so labeled is however very vague. The sections of Article 2 of the Regulations specify that individuals over the age of 18 who commit certain offenses can be deemed to be hooligans. These offenses are all also included in the articles of the Criminal Code 4/ or other statutes as follows: §1: Organizing or participating in a group that sabotages social order-- Article 154. §2: Weapons offenses-- Regulations Governing the Control of Guns, Ammunition, Knives and Other Weapons. 5/ §3: Blackmail-- Articles 339, 346; Forcing others to act-- Article 304; Eating or drinking without pay-- Article 339. §4: Operating a gambling house-- Article 268; Prostitution offenses-- Article 231; Collecting debts by force-- Article 304. ----------------------- 4/ Promulgated Jan. 1, 1935, last revised Feb. 26, 1969. 5/ Supra note 1, at 53.3 There is thus no clear standard in the law for determining when a person is a hooligan based on the offense alone; all of these actions are punishable through regular criminal proceedings. Section 5 of Article 2 leaves even more room for interpretation of a case, stating that "those whose conduct is bad or who are vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging social order or endangering the life, person, freedom, or property of others," can be treated as hooligans. The vague terms "bad" and "vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging" are not further defined. It is thus quite possible that a person could be labeled a hooligan and subject to the other provisions of the law based more on his or her attitude or life-style than on any particular crime. Furthermore, once deemed a hooligan, an individual may appeal the label only to a higher authority within Garrison Headquarters, not to the civilian courts. Court hearings are held, but only at the stage when a hooligan may be sent to a reformatory. A lawyer may appear for the person to argue his case. The court decides within ten days whether or not the person must undergo formal reform, and for how long; reform terms may be from one to three years (Art. 14). The court is not obliged to inform the person of the length of the "sentence" to the reformatory (Art. 8). Generally these hearings are held before special tribunals, presided over probably mostly by former military, rather than civilian, judges. There are fewer procedural protections than outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular criminal indictments. Hooligans for whom the court orders time in a reformatory are generally sent to the one located on Green Island (also called Flaming Island), off the east coast of Taiwan. Labor service is required during the "reform."3 There is thus no clear standard in the law for determining when a person is a hooligan based on the offense alone; all of these actions are punishable through regular criminal proceedings. Section 5 of Article 2 leaves even more room for interpretation of a case, stating that "those whose conduct is bad or who are vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging social order or endangering the life, person, freedom, or property of others," can be treated as hooligans. The vague terms "bad" and "vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging" are not further defined. It is thus quite possible that a person could be labeled a hooligan and subject to the other provisions of the law based more on his or her attitude or life-style than on any particular crime. Furthermore, once deemed a hooligan, an individual may appeal the label only to a higher authority within Garrison Headquarters, not to the civilian courts. Court hearings are held, but only at the stage when a hooligan may be sent to a reformatory. A lawyer may appear for the person to argue his case. The court decides within ten days whether or not the person must undergo formal reform, and for how long; reform terms may be from one to three years (Art. 14). The court is not obliged to inform the person of the length of the "sentence" to the reformatory (Art. 8). Generally these hearings are held before special tribunals, presided over probably mostly by former military, rather than civilian, judges. There are fewer procedural protections than outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular criminal indictments. Hooligans for whom the court orders time in a reformatory are generally sent to the one located on Green Island (also called Flaming Island), off the east coast of Taiwan. Labor service is required during the "reform."3 There is thus no clear standard in the law for determining when a person is a hooligan based on the offense alone; all of these actions are punishable through regular criminal proceedings. Section 5 of Article 2 leaves even more room for interpretation of a case, stating that "those whose conduct is bad or who are vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging social order or endangering the life, person, freedom, or property of others," can be treated as hooligans. The vague terms "bad" and "vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging" are not further defined. It is thus quite possible that a person could be labeled a hooligan and subject to the other provisions of the law based more on his or her attitude or life-style than on any particular crime. Furthermore, once deemed a hooligan, an individual may appeal the label only to a higher authority within Garrison Headquarters, not to the civilian courts. Court hearings are held, but only at the stage when a hooligan may be sent to a reformatory. A lawyer may appear for the person to argue his case. The court decides within ten days whether or not the person must undergo formal reform, and for how long; reform terms may be from one to three years (Art. 14). The court is not obliged to inform the person of the length of the "sentence" to the reformatory (Art. 8). Generally these hearings are held before special tribunals, presided over probably mostly by former military, rather than civilian, judges. There are fewer procedural protections than outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular criminal indictments. Hooligans for whom the court orders time in a reformatory are generally sent to the one located on Green Island (also called Flaming Island), off the east coast of Taiwan. Labor service is required during the "reform."3 There is thus no clear standard in the law for determining when a person is a hooligan based on the offense alone; all of these actions are punishable through regular criminal proceedings. Section 5 of Article 2 leaves even more room for interpretation of a case, stating that "those whose conduct is bad or who are vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging social order or endangering the life, person, freedom, or property of others," can be treated as hooligans. The vague terms "bad" and "vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging" are not further defined. It is thus quite possible that a person could be labeled a hooligan and subject to the other provisions of the law based more on his or her attitude or life-style than on any particular crime. Furthermore, once deemed a hooligan, an individual may appeal the label only to a higher authority within Garrison Headquarters, not to the civilian courts. Court hearings are held, but only at the stage when a hooligan may be sent to a reformatory. A lawyer may appear for the person to argue his case. The court decides within ten days whether or not the person must undergo formal reform, and for how long; reform terms may be from one to three years (Art. 14). The court is not obliged to inform the person of the length of the "sentence" to the reformatory (Art. 8). Generally these hearings are held before special tribunals, presided over probably mostly by former military, rather than civilian, judges. There are fewer procedural protections than outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular criminal indictments. Hooligans for whom the court orders time in a reformatory are generally sent to the one located on Green Island (also called Flaming Island), off the east coast of Taiwan. Labor service is required during the "reform."3 There is thus no clear standard in the law for determining when a person is a hooligan based on the offense alone; all of these actions are punishable through regular criminal proceedings. Section 5 of Article 2 leaves even more room for interpretation of a case, stating that "those whose conduct is bad or who are vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging social order or endangering the life, person, freedom, or property of others," can be treated as hooligans. The vague terms "bad" and "vagabonds with the habit of sabotaging" are not further defined. It is thus quite possible that a person could be labeled a hooligan and subject to the other provisions of the law based more on his or her attitude or life-style than on any particular crime. Furthermore, once deemed a hooligan, an individual may appeal the label only to a higher authority within Garrison Headquarters, not to the civilian courts. Court hearings are held, but only at the stage when a hooligan may be sent to a reformatory. A lawyer may appear for the person to argue his case. The court decides within ten days whether or not the person must undergo formal reform, and for how long; reform terms may be from one to three years (Art. 14). The court is not obliged to inform the person of the length of the "sentence" to the reformatory (Art. 8). Generally these hearings are held before special tribunals, presided over probably mostly by former military, rather than civilian, judges. There are fewer procedural protections than outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular criminal indictments. Hooligans for whom the court orders time in a reformatory are generally sent to the one located on Green Island (also called Flaming Island), off the east coast of Taiwan. Labor service is required during the "reform."4 Conclusion The hooligan statute was certainly not well-drafted from the point of view of civil rights. The possibility of double-jeopardy through criminal prosecution as well as reform as a hooligan is not eliminated. Furthermore, the wording of the provisions on determining that a person is a hooligan is such that the authorities can make subjective judgments. It is thus conceivable that the statute could be used for political oppression. II. Sedition The Regulation for the Punishment of Sedition 6/ also contain provisions on crimes covered by the Criminal Code. According to the Law on the Standardization of Central Laws and Regulations 7/, where there is overlap between a general law, such as the Code, and a specific one, such as the sedition regulation, the more specific statute is superior. This is significant because the provisions of the Criminal Code are much less severe than those of the sedition regulation. Prepared by Tao-tai Hsia, Chief, and Constance A. Johnson, Legal Research Assistant Far Eastern Law Division Law Library, Library of Congress March 1986 TTH:CAJ:caj 3/6/86 [*CAJ TH*] ------------------------- 6/ Promulgated June 21, 1949, last amended July 26, 1958. 7/ Aug. 31, 1970.4 Conclusion The hooligan statute was certainly not well-drafted from the point of view of civil rights. The possibility of double-jeopardy through criminal prosecution as well as reform as a hooligan is not eliminated. Furthermore, the wording of the provisions on determining that a person is a hooligan is such that the authorities can make subjective judgments. It is thus conceivable that the statute could be used for political oppression. II. Sedition The Regulation for the Punishment of Sedition 6/ also contain provisions on crimes covered by the Criminal Code. According to the Law on the Standardization of Central Laws and Regulations 7/, where there is overlap between a general law, such as the Code, and a specific one, such as the sedition regulation, the more specific statute is superior. This is significant because the provisions of the Criminal Code are much less severe than those of the sedition regulation. Prepared by Tao-tai Hsia, Chief, and Constance A. Johnson, Legal Research Assistant Far Eastern Law Division Law Library, Library of Congress March 1986 TTH:CAJ:caj 3/6/86 [*CAJ TH*] ------------------------- 6/ Promulgated June 21, 1949, last amended July 26, 1958. 7/ Aug. 31, 1970.4 Conclusion The hooligan statute was certainly not well-drafted from the point of view of civil rights. The possibility of double-jeopardy through criminal prosecution as well as reform as a hooligan is not eliminated. Furthermore, the wording of the provisions on determining that a person is a hooligan is such that the authorities can make subjective judgments. It is thus conceivable that the statute could be used for political oppression. II. Sedition The Regulation for the Punishment of Sedition 6/ also contain provisions on crimes covered by the Criminal Code. According to the Law on the Standardization of Central Laws and Regulations 7/, where there is overlap between a general law, such as the Code, and a specific one, such as the sedition regulation, the more specific statute is superior. This is significant because the provisions of the Criminal Code are much less severe than those of the sedition regulation. Prepared by Tao-tai Hsia, Chief, and Constance A. Johnson, Legal Research Assistant Far Eastern Law Division Law Library, Library of Congress March 1986 TTH:CAJ:caj 3/6/86 [*CAJ TH*] ------------------------- 6/ Promulgated June 21, 1949, last amended July 26, 1958. 7/ Aug. 31, 1970.4 Conclusion The hooligan statute was certainly not well-drafted from the point of view of civil rights. The possibility of double-jeopardy through criminal prosecution as well as reform as a hooligan is not eliminated. Furthermore, the wording of the provisions on determining that a person is a hooligan is such that the authorities can make subjective judgments. It is thus conceivable that the statute could be used for political oppression. II. Sedition The Regulation for the Punishment of Sedition 6/ also contain provisions on crimes covered by the Criminal Code. According to the Law on the Standardization of Central Laws and Regulations 7/, where there is overlap between a general law, such as the Code, and a specific one, such as the sedition regulation, the more specific statute is superior. This is significant because the provisions of the Criminal Code are much less severe than those of the sedition regulation. Prepared by Tao-tai Hsia, Chief, and Constance A. Johnson, Legal Research Assistant Far Eastern Law Division Law Library, Library of Congress March 1986 TTH:CAJ:caj 3/6/86 [*CAJ TH*] ------------------------- 6/ Promulgated June 21, 1949, last amended July 26, 1958. 7/ Aug. 31, 1970.4 Conclusion The hooligan statute was certainly not well-drafted from the point of view of civil rights. The possibility of double-jeopardy through criminal prosecution as well as reform as a hooligan is not eliminated. Furthermore, the wording of the provisions on determining that a person is a hooligan is such that the authorities can make subjective judgments. It is thus conceivable that the statute could be used for political oppression. II. Sedition The Regulation for the Punishment of Sedition 6/ also contain provisions on crimes covered by the Criminal Code. According to the Law on the Standardization of Central Laws and Regulations 7/, where there is overlap between a general law, such as the Code, and a specific one, such as the sedition regulation, the more specific statute is superior. This is significant because the provisions of the Criminal Code are much less severe than those of the sedition regulation. Prepared by Tao-tai Hsia, Chief, and Constance A. Johnson, Legal Research Assistant Far Eastern Law Division Law Library, Library of Congress March 1986 TTH:CAJ:caj 3/6/86 [*CAJ TH*] ------------------------- 6/ Promulgated June 21, 1949, last amended July 26, 1958. 7/ Aug. 31, 1970.