Thou shalt not kill
Referring to the 44 convicts on death row in Taiwan, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) said last week: “I’m glad that the devils can finally go to hell” (“Lawmakers acclaim Wang’s resignation,” March 13, page 3).
How fortunate Taiwan is to have government officials who are tactful enough to choose their words wisely while speaking publicly.
Lo is either ignorant of, or has forgotten, Jesus’ admonishment in Matthew 7:1 — “Judge not, so that you yourselves be not also judged.”
Moreover, before he goes on condemning people to eternal damnation and perdition, Lo had best give some thought to the expression that only madmen and savages profess to know the mind of God.
An absolutely crucial fact that one must keep in mind is that of the 44 convicts presently on death row in Taiwan, there is a possibility that a number of them are not guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
A perfect example of this phenomenon is the group of men referred to as the “Hsichih Trio” [Editor’s note: The “Hsichih Trio” are not among the 44 individuals on death row].
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), when he was minister of justice, refused to sign the trio’s execution order for lack of evidence, while US forensics expert Henry Lee (李昌鈺) testified in the trio’s favor in court in May 2007.
In 2003, the three men were freed after the High Court overturned their sentences. The Taiwan Supreme Court then ordered the High Court to “re-examine” the case. On June 29, 2007, the High Court issued a guilty verdict. It also reinstated the death penalty.
Protesters outside the courtroom began to scream that the Taiwanese judicial system was guilty and that the defendants were innocent.
One of the defense lawyers, Su You-chen (蘇友辰), said: “The ruling is ridiculous. The judicial system is stained. Judicial reform is bullshit.”
Here’s a question we should all be asking ourselves: Would it be preferable to let 100 guilty people go free rather than have one innocent person unjustly imprisoned?
I shudder with revulsion, fear and disgust when I think about how many of the 44 convicts currently on death row in Taiwan may be innocent.
This is one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty — that there will always be a significant danger that an innocent person will be condemned to death.
The danger is all the greater in Taiwan, where the judicial system is stained red with human blood. It is easily manipulated and abused. Far too often, it is used as a “club” to smash the heads of people whose only crime is to have said or done something to anger a powerful and influential politician. It is a disgrace.
Former minister of justice Wang Ching-fen (王清峰) said she would rather “go to hell” than order the executions of the 44 convicts on death row.
There is no doubt in my mind that Wang is a sincere, courageous woman with the highest ethical principles.
However, there is precious little difference between capital punishment and a life term in prison. The former kills quickly, while the latter tortures someone to death slowly.
Former president Chen Shu-bian (陳水扁) is facing such torture. Chen, like Wang, was a human rights activist. Does Chen truly deserve life imprisonment? Does no one see the irony of this man who once crusaded for human rights — and through his efforts, saving the lives of those unjustly imprisoned — now himself being horribly victimized with the unspeakable burden of life in prison?
MICHAEL SCANLON
East Hartford, Connecticut
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