I was very shocked by C.A. Carelli's letter (Letters, Feb. 15, page 8). Carelli deserves our admiration for his courage and frankness. He is courageous in that, apparently, he does not care that others may consider him a bigot. His frankness gives others the chance to explain why they disagree with him.
I do not understand why Carelli thinks that rape should be considered any differently from other types of physical assault. Would he argue that a robber who chopped off his victim's arm should not be subjected to mandatory prosecution? Perhaps Carelli would argue that prosecution should not take place, as long as the victim "consents" to having his arm chopped off?
The purpose of the criminal law is to punish offenses so serious that they are deemed to have inflicted injuries not just on the immediate victims, but also on society at large. As injuries are also inflicted on society, the offense is subject to mandatory prosecution and not left up to the individual victims to decide whether or not to prosecute the offenders. As for the private injuries suffered by the individual victims, they have discretion about seeking compensation through civil litigation. So, although criminal prosecutions of rape victims have become mandatory in Taiwan, the victims may still decide for themselves whether they want to seek civil compensation. This kind of system can hardly be characterized as paternalistic.
I have a feeling that Carelli does not realize the enormous pressure faced by rape victims in Taiwanese culture to settle against their will. They know that once the crime is publicized, the public tend to search for reasons to blame the victims, including those suggested by Carelli himself -- "getting [herself] into a hazardous situation and being confused as to whether she was raped or merely acted foolishly." Getting herself into a "hazardous situation" may be foolish, but no amount of "foolishness" justifies rape. As for being "confused," just go ask any female whether she thinks she is likely to feel "confused" about such a thing.
The above-described skepticism toward rape victims is nothing compared to the other types of name-smearing that they suffer. As the Taipei Times editorial ("Thinking on rape needs changing, Feb. 11, page 8), points out, rape victims often face speculation about participating in set ups or about their own promiscuity.
If the prosecution of rape were not mandatory, the crime would go unpunished in most instances, because the victims prefer to settle than suffer additional insults. When a crime goes unpunished, it tends to take place with increased frequency.
Most other countries have made prosecution for rape mandatory. Does Carelli think that these countries are being unreasonable? If so, he must be very confident, for he seems to think he is smarter than all the combined brains of the legal experts across the globe.
Cyndi Lai
Peitou
Rape is a heinous crime
Your recent editorial "Thinking on rape needs to change" is completely correct. Just like murder, rape is a heinous crime that offends against not only the immediate victim but society as a whole. Some idiots have argued, "Why drag the victim to court if they don't want to sue?" The whole of society feels the pain of crimes like murder, rape and kidnappings. This is why the Taipei Times is totally correct to advocate a change in Taiwan's penal code to make rape prosecutions mandatory.
Taiwan has a male chauvinistic system that allows the "paying off " of victims in exchange for their silence. Our system allows the rich and privileged to buy their way out of crimes. Mandatory prosecution is the only fair and even handed way to apply the law. Thank you for your enlightened view.
Shirley Lin
Taipei
More banking reform needed
It is encouraging to see the Ministry of Finance doing its utmost to consolidate the over crowded banking industry ("Merger plans for banks revived," Feb. 12, page 17). But, as an investment banker, I believe the ministry should first, in collaboration with the Securities and Exchange Commission, look into financial shareholdings of political parties in financial institutions.
Political parties should be restricted from holding such shares so as to prevent them from controlling such financial institutions.
Taiwan's financial institutions, including banks and securities companies, are selectively owned and managed by political parties who are appointed to the boards of directors because of their percentage shareholdings. Reports have shown that those institutions which have parties as their major shareholders tend to slacken in their credit risk management, to the advantage of these "major shareholders," but at the expense of depositors.
It would be wise if political parties were restricted from holding shares in any of these institutions,) otherwise the problems of the past will continue and perhaps the whole financial sector will ultimately be monopolized by these parties.
We should address the financial regulations pertaining to parties' interests in financial institutions before we begin to talk about bank mergers.
Michael Teo
Singapore
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry