The activities of some hometown friends of the alleged rice bomber Yang Ju-men (
The local community university is setting Yang up as a hero fighting for farmers' rights, adding him to the curriculum and calling for thousands to take to the streets in his support.
But it does not matter how exulted the motivations behind Yang's alleged actions are, nor how good a person he is. Endangering people's lives by planting bombs is a crime.
His character and his actions should not be confused. Yang's friends have even glamorized the bombs by describing them as harmless devices intended to send a message about farmers' rights to the government.
If we accept motivation as a means of justifying criminal acts, then a time bomb set to destroy Taiwan's public safety has already started ticking.
If we agree that seeking to overturn the government is acceptable, then the peace and security that Taiwan currently enjoys will be utterly destroyed.
If we take motivation as the starting point of our argument, then, looked at dispassionately, how different is Yang from Osama bin Laden? Yang allegedly made bombs and placed them in crowded public places as a means of expressing his dissatisfaction with the government's agricultural policy, and to force the policymakers' hand.
Bin Laden claims that his use of terrorism is motivated by a fight for the rights of his compatriots, and that he is willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent people because it is the only way of directly threatening a superpower like the US.
Both deny that they act in their own interest, but there is no denying that the nature of their terrorist acts is criminal.
Yang has an American precursor in his use of bombs as a means of expressing his dissatisfaction: Timothy McVeigh, whose Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, was said to have been an act of vengeance for those killed in the 51-day standoff between US law enforcement agencies and members of the Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993.
If the tireless efforts of the police had not brought the alleged terrorist activities of Yang to an end, can we be sure that these efforts would have stopped at harmless explosions doing nothing more than sending a message to the government?
Although the "rice bomber" attacks did not harm anyone, the burden they placed on law enforcement agencies for more than a year has indirectly contributed to the suffering of victims from other crimes.
It is difficult for people outside the law enforcement field to understand the enormous resources that were devoted to investigating the rice bomber's 17 attacks.
As most of the bombs were placed in locations with considerable human traffic, such as railway stations and parks, the police were required to increase patrols to look for explosive devices.
For example, when the Democratic Progressive Party organized a huge rally in Taipei's Da-an Forest Park in the run-up to the legislative elections, hundreds of police officers had to be deployed the day before the event to inspect the area for explosive devices, including the thousands of cars parked in the parking lot.
On the day of the rally, police were stationed all around the grounds -- and all because Yang was still at large.
The manpower required for all this was taken off the streets of Taipei, where there were fewer patrols and fewer people working on criminal investigations. The people of Taipei had to pay the price.
Although Yang will not be planting any more bombs, media coverage of the event is likely to lead to copycat crimes, so the real bomb threat has only just begun.
Such criminals will be violating the human rights of the people of Taiwan.
In a democratic Taiwan, we have the right to hold different opinions, and the right to express these opinions should be protected.
But when the expression of these opinions violates public safety, we cannot stand by as people are misled by muddled thinking on this issue.
Sandy Yeh is the director of Continuing Education and Training Center at Central Police University.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past