On Dec. 6 and Dec. 7, Tokyo was host to the International Conference on Human Rights and the Death Penalty, an event jointly organized by the American Bar Association, the Japanese Foundation of Bar Associations (JFBA) and the EU, and attended by representatives of groups from more than 20 countries.
I was there to represent the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, an organization formed by a large number of Taiwanese interest groups, including the Judicial Reform Foundation, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights and the Taipei Society.
During his address in the closing session, the chairperson of the JFBA made a few comments that left a deep impression on me.
He pointed out that among the democratic, advanced nations today, only the US, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan still have the death penalty.
He also said that some 90 percent of death sentences in the world were meted out by China's judiciary and that we share the burden of guilt for this travesty if we choose to just sit by and do nothing.
I made special note of the fact that he neglected to include Singapore among his list of "democratic" nations, but did include Taiwan.
After the conference finished, the British government, which funded the event, invited our government's envoy from the Ministry of Justice to attend a meeting with the representatives of the other nations, all expenses paid.
The envoy, a soft-spoken prosecutor surnamed Chu, told the meeting in impeccable English that Taiwan's government was sparing no effort in pursuing the abolition of capital punishment.
He told them that the number of death sentences meted out by Taiwanese judges was decreasing every year and that the only death sentence now on the books was being commuted as part of the government's policy to phase out capital punishment.
In other words, we were seeing the gradual fulfillment of one of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) policy promises: the abolition of capital punishment.
It was a moment to make one proud. But I didn't feel all that elated.
The reason? Taiwanese brothers Lin Meng-kai (
According to newspaper reports, the reason that the Ministry of Justice had allowed this sentence to proceed was because "the Lin brothers failed to show remorse" and "there was in fact no good reason to save their lives."
They added that "this notwithstanding, the Ministry of Justice remains committed to pursuing the abolition of capital punishment."
I feel it necessary to address Minister of Justice Morley Shih (
Minister, if you are really committed to ending the death penalty, you have to understand that capital punishment, whether it is retained or abolished, is not about individual cases.
It represents the degree to which a nation respects human life.
Also, capital punishment has nothing to do with rehabilitating offenders through making them feel remorse as a condition of mercy.
Nor has it proved to be an effective deterrent.
If Shih truly believes punishment has a positive social goal, then I think it is eminently possible to "find a reason to save" the lives of convicts facing the death sentence.
Wu Hao-jen is president of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath