寧語藍實習日誌04: 動物保護記者會

動物保護記者會

動物保護記者會

今天，我參加了台灣公民參與協會、關懷生命協會、台灣動物保護行政監督聯盟和習根台灣協會在立法院研究大樓舉行的聯合記者會。我也見到了台灣公民參與協會的主任，也是志工之一Jennifer。這是我第一次參加記者會，我覺得非常興奮。

我事先做了一些功課，了解立法院在台灣政府中的功能。立法院的功能類似美國國會，是台灣的立法機構（只是只有一個議院）。台灣的中央政府由行政院、立法院、司法院、考試院和監察院組成。在三月十日的一次記者會上，另一個組織（名為“蠻野心足生態協會”）攻擊並抹黑了其他組織。

在全國NGOs環境會會議舉辦前夕，身為合辦團體，他們卻另行召開記者會，對其他組織進行不實指控，原因是他們在預備會議上沒有使用正規的正式機制，所以提案被駁回。他們的行為顯然非常不理智。何先生表示，這個行動是首次發生，。即便在過去，不同組織之間意見不合，也都對內不會公開，。然而，這是他第一次在看到這種公開抹黑的現象。看到不同組織之間出現這種衝突，我感到有些驚訝，畢竟他們都致力於同一個目標：保護環境，促進台灣的動物福利。

當天下午，我們回到實習地點，與另一個同樣關注動物保護的小組志工會面，繼續討論新聞發布會上的內容。何先生告訴我，這個小組沒有正式的公共政策經驗，他們向監察院請願也思考後續能做什麼，所以來請教。

看到一般民眾也能參與公共政策，我覺得很有意思。我他們已經到監察院的請願，請願內容是設立動物保護警察、提高刑事處罰力度，以及放寬強制沒收動物的門檻。具體來說，他們希望將最高刑期從兩年提高到三年，並將罰款上限從200萬新台幣（約6.3萬美元）提高到300萬新台幣（約9.4萬美元）。考慮到台灣的罰款額度在其他國家已經相對較高，我覺得這個請願很有意思。何宗勳秘書長告訴他們，他們的所有要求都涉及法律變更，而法律改革通常需要 5-10 年時間，即使紙面上的處罰力度加大，也不一定會導致執法力度加強。

他們也提到，他們認為虐待動物案件的增加是由於社會不穩定加劇，人們將不滿情緒發洩在包括動物在內的弱勢群體身上。 何宗勳秘書長建議他們將強制性教育納入訴求，就像酒駕司機必須參加課程一樣。他們最好將重點放在動物保護警察和教育上，而不是法律問題。此外，他們應該避免提交公共政策提案（需要5000個簽名），而是舉行全民公投（需要2800個簽名），迫使政府做出回應。他們的提議相當簡單，而且由於他們不隸屬於任何政黨，因此應該更具吸引力。他們的最終目標是保持勢頭，讓人們持續關注，以免公眾的注意力逐漸消退。

 Animal Protection Press Conference

    Today, I attended a joint press conference held at the Legislative Yuan Research Building by the Taiwan Citizen Participation Association, the Care for Life Association, the Taiwan Animal Protection Administrative Oversight Alliance, and the Siegen Taiwan Association. I also met Jennifer, the director of the Taiwan Citizen Participation Association, who is also one of its volunteers. This was my first time attending a press conference, and I was very excited.

    I did some research beforehand to understand the function of the Legislative Yuan in the Taiwanese government. The Legislative Yuan functions similarly to the US Congress; it is Taiwan's legislative body (although it only has one house). Taiwan's central government consists of the Executive Yuan, the Legislative Yuan, the Judicial Yuan, the Examination Yuan, and the Control Yuan. At a press conference on March 10th, another organization, called the "Wild Hearts Ecological Association" attacked and smeared other organizations.

    On the eve of the National NGOs Environmental Conference, as a co-organizer, they held a separate press conference to make false accusations against other organizations because their proposals were rejected at the preparatory meeting due to their failure to use formal mechanisms. Their behavior was clearly very irrational. Mr. He stated that this action was the first of its kind. Even in the past, disagreements between different organizations were kept private. However, this was the first time he had witnessed such public smear campaigning. I was somewhat surprised to see this conflict between different organizations, given their shared goal: environmental protection and promoting animal welfare in Taiwan.

    That afternoon, we returned to our internship location and met with volunteers from another group also focused on animal protection to continue discussing the press conference. Mr. He told me that this group lacked formal public policy experience; they had petitioned the Control Yuan and were considering what could be done next, hence their consultation.

    I found it very interesting to see ordinary citizens participating in public policy. Their petition to the Control Yuan calls for the establishment of animal protection police, increased criminal penalties, and a relaxation of the threshold for forced animal confiscation. Specifically, they hope to increase the maximum sentence from two to three years and the maximum fine from NT$2 million (approximately US$63,000) to NT$3 million (approximately US$94,000). Considering that Taiwan's fines are already relatively high compared to other countries, I found this petition very interesting. Secretary General Ho Chung-hsun told them that all their demands involved legal changes, and legal reforms typically take 5-10 years. Even if penalties were increased on paper, it wouldn't necessarily lead to stronger enforcement.

    They also mentioned that they believed the increase in animal cruelty cases was due to heightened social instability, with people venting their frustrations on vulnerable groups, including animals. Secretary General Ho suggested they include mandatory education in their demands, similar to the requirement for drunk drivers to attend rehabilitation courses. They should focus on animal protection police and education rather than legal issues. Furthermore, they should avoid submitting public policy proposals (requiring 5,000 signatures) and instead hold a referendum (requiring 2,800 signatures) to force a government response. Their proposal was quite simple, and since they were not affiliated with any political party, it should be more appealing. Their ultimate goal was to maintain momentum and keep public attention focused on their cause.