Principle of neutrality not a ban on free speech

The Chiayi-based troupe Our Theatre (阮劇團) earlier this month performed the play Louder! (噪音風暴) at Taipei’s Wellspring Theater. The troupe set up a public bulletin at the venue, where an audience member posted a campaign sticker of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋). Taipei Department of Cultural Affairs Commissioner Tsai Shih-ping (蔡詩萍) asked the troupe to remove the sticker, saying that municipal regulations forbid partisan messages in publicly owned venues.

While this might appear as a dispute over venue management, it raises a fundamental question for democratic societies: Is administrative neutrality a principle designed to constrain the exercise of public power, or a pretext for interfering with citizens’ right to political expression?

The legislative purpose of the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials (公務人員行政中立法) is to ensure that civil servants maintain political neutrality in the performance of their official duties and prevent them from using their authority or public resources to support specific candidates. It was never intended to require citizens to give up their right to political expression. How, then, can members of the public posting stickers on a theater troupe’s bulletin board to express their political views be equated with government agencies using public authority or funds to campaign for a candidate? Conflating the two obscures the law’s original intent, turning a principle designed to prevent the abuse of power into justification for restricting people’s rights.

Public cultural venues certainly need rules governing their use, but the authorities responsible for managing them must have a clear legal basis for exercising that authority. If a venue has established clear and lawful regulations, they should be applied consistently. However, if the Department of Cultural Affairs ordered the removal of the sticker simply because am audience member expressed their political views, it should explain the legal basis for the order, venue management rules and the necessity of such restrictions.

What is particularly concerning is that the Department of Cultural Affairs controls access to public venues and cultural funding. Even a seemingly friendly “reminder” might exert pressure on independent arts groups that rely on public-sector resources to operate, given the power imbalance between the two parties. Even without an explicit ban, authorities’ actions might lead theater companies to avoid politically sensitive topics out of concern that their access to future funding might be affected. When creators begin to restrict themselves to protect their own interests, a chilling effect can quietly take hold. The department should publicly explain the basis for asking the troupe to remove the sticker and subject its actions to public scrutiny, rather than simply dismissing the matter as a well-intentioned reminder.

The cultural essence of a democratic city lies in respecting differences and embracing diverse voices, not categorically forbidding political symbols. If the Department of Cultural Affairs truly seeks to uphold the principle of administrative neutrality, it should administer clear regulations and consistent standards rather than acting solely on assumptions. Rules governing the use of public venues are undoubtedly necessary, but such rules must not become a rationale for restricting political expression.

Yeh Yu-cheng is a secretary at the Pingtung County Public Health Bureau.