Police officer Lai Chih-yan (賴智彥) of the Zhongshan Precinct was fatally stabbed outside a police station in Dazhi (大直) last month by a criminal he had arrested and was bringing in. The ensuing investigations directed the blame at the police themselves: inadequate training, issues with management, training and delegation of responsibility by senior officers and failure to follow procedures all contributed to the officer’s death.
Reports were filed, blame was accorded, punishments were meted out. Senior officers from all of the stations in Taipei City must now be present at each station around the clock.
The murder of a police officer is a major incident, and so it is of course right to have an investigation of this size: Hopefully it will prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.
Lai’s corpse was still warm when we heard news of a new high court ruling in which, after five reviews, Chen Ta-min (陳達民), the man responsible for the fatal shooting of Taipei County officer Lin An-shun (林安順) 12 years ago, was finally given a life sentence for attempted murder. This case has dragged on for years, which is bad enough. What I find exasperating, however, is how two suspects allegedly responsible for taking Lin’s life and seriously wounding two other officers could respectively be found not guilty and guilty, with the latter receiving a life sentence from the same judge. Even more difficult to understand is the basis on which the judge allowed the two to clear each other of guilt of more serious charges.
Three years ago he ruled that Chen was guilty of murdering the officer and handed down a not guilty verdict for his alleged accomplice Li Teh-yang (李德陽).
However, in the recent verdict, the judge decided that Chen was guilty of attempted murder. Given the contradictions in this case, the public is questioning the credibility of judicial authorities. This is totally unacceptable for the victims’ families and the police, having waited all these years for justice to be done.
Twelve years ago Taiwan was in the grip of a law and order crisis. We had just witnessed the brutal murder of feminist Peng Wan-ru (彭婉如) and the execution-style killing of Taoyuan County commissioner Liu Pang-yu (劉邦友), both unsolved, as well as the kidnap and murder of teenager Pai Hsiao-yan (白曉燕). Chen Chin-hsing (陳進興), wanted for the latter crime, was still on the loose; police morale had hit rock-bottom and the public was gripped with fear.
It was against this backdrop that Lin An-shun, accompanied by officers Hsu Chen-fa (許振發) and Li Jen-ho (李仁和), set off to apprehend suspected drug dealers Li Teh-yang and Chen Ta-min, who were known to be armed. The police were shot at when they went to pull the criminals out from an overturned vehicle: Lin was shot seven times and died from his wounds. Hsu was shot in the head and was paralyzed down the left side of his body, and Li Jen-ho took a bullet in the leg. Lin’s sacrifice had the police force out for blood, and they got it. They thought at the time the alleged cop killer would be brought to justice, but incomprehensibly, the judge let him off lightly, based on contradictory reasoning.
People who stop the police from maintaining law and order, who trade in violence and intimidation, are not simply putting the police in danger, they are jeopardizing respect for the law and the very authority of the state. They are putting people’s lives and property at stake, and so it is of paramount importance that all countries take on a zero tolerance policy when it comes to cop killers.
Just as they are involved in fighting crime, the police are also representatives of state authority. It appears, however, that the lives of police officers in Taiwan are worth less than those in other countries, and that sanctions against attacking and killing members of the police force have weakened over time. Judicial guarantees are assured under the banner of “human rights.”
Recently, four police officers were sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle before work when a man walked in, pulled out a gun and shot all four dead. Two days after the shooting, an officer on patrol noticed a suspicious man beside a stolen car, and recognized him as the wanted suspect. He drew his gun and shouted for the man to freeze, but the suspect ran off. Shots were fired, and the suspect died on the scene. It was later confirmed that the suspect was indeed the man who had gunned down the police officers in Seattle, and the whole nation rejoiced at the news that justice had been done.
I doubt the same thing would have happened in Taiwan.
If a tragic incident like this happened in Taiwan, there would be questions from the media about how it was possible that four armed police officers, ready for duty, were able to be killed by a single attacker. Their superiors would want prosecutors to look into whether the officer had used excessive force, shooting the suspect in the back. Judges would also be extremely likely to find a police officer in this situation guilty of manslaughter and professional misconduct.
This is Taiwan today: a place where the police don’t know where they stand.
If cop killers are treated lightly, how are we going to find people willing to maintain law and order in Taiwan when they must be willing to lay down their lives in the line of duty?
Sandy Yeh is president of the Asian Association of Police Studies and a board director of the Police Research Association.
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
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
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