Former minister of justice Wang Ching-feng’s (王清峰) statement that she would never authorize the execution of a prisoner on death row and her subsequent resignation caused quite a controversy. Suddenly, everyone seems to be an expert on capital punishment, while both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) politicians have showen serious confusion over the issue. This shows that neither the government nor the opposition have been practising what they have been preaching for so many years.
Ever since Chen Ding-nan (陳定南) became justice minister when the DPP administration took office in 2000, the party has closely followed the spirit of international treaties by declaring the death penalty should be abolished and by placing a moratorium on death sentences. However, over the past few days, statements by DPP Chairperson Tsai Ying-wen (蔡英文) and other DPP politicians imply they have forgotten that it was their party that initiated the move to incorporate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into Taiwanese legislation when the party was in power.
In so doing, they have rejected the party’s policy to abolish capital punishment and looked toward China, the country with the highest number of executions. The DPP, which followed up on its loss of government power by pledging to consolidate democracy and human rights values while further insisting on not leaning toward China, is obligated to tell the public whether its position on this issue has changed as a result of short-term political interests, or if it has instead decided to “actively lean toward China” on human rights issues.
While still in opposition, the KMT was strongly opposed to incorporating the two covenants into law, but as soon as President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration came to power, it claimed the integration of the two covenants in local legislation as its own accomplishments. The government is now duty-bound to explain why it will not tell the public that Article 6, paragraph 4 of the ICCPR stipulates that “Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.” It should also explain that Article 8 of the Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法) states: “All laws, regulations, directions and administrative measures incompatible to the two covenants should be amended within two years after the Act enters into force.”
Why avoid the fact that 14 of the 44 convicts now on death row requested a constitutional interpretation two years ago and asked that a moratorium on executions be imposed, that the remaining 30 convicts could very possibly have similar reasons to request a constitutional interpretation and that the Ministry of Justice is studying the possibility that their sentences are unconstitutional and whether their cases should be retried?
The Ministry of Justice under KMT and DPP administrations claimed that its decision not to carry out executions had legal foundations. This raises the question: Why is the Ma administration is abusing the phrase “administration according to the law” and refusing to face up to its human rights promises given that there now is domestic legislation giving legally binding force to the two international human rights conventions?
Could it really be that the KMT thinks that taking political responsibility means carrying out illegal executions?
Liu Ching-yi is associate professor of law in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS