Switzerland and death penalty
With reference to your article saying that “advanced democracies such as the US, Japan and Switzerland have the death penalty,” (“Opinions differ on death penalty,” March 15, page 8) I would like to point out that capital punishment is forbidden in Switzerland (Federal Constitution, Art 10, Paragraph 1). It was abolished from the Federal Criminal Law in 1942, but remained a part of Military Criminal Law until 1992. It was explicitly banned in the revised Constitution of Jan. 1. Within the range of possibilities available to it Switzerland has promoted the abolishment of capital punishment worldwide through various channels. Switzerland also has ratified relevant international human rights conventions.
In this respect, it may be of interest to you that the recent Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Geneva (Feb. 24-26) was organized in partnership with the Swiss Confederation.
I hope that I have been able to provide you with some clarification on this particular case and remain at your disposal should you require any additional information.
JOST FEER
Taipei
Does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong?
One innocent person executed is one too many.
In the current debate about Taiwan’s death penalty, lawyer Lin Chyong-jia (林瓊嘉) argued (“What is death penalty’s purpose?” March 20, page 8) that it has a “positive side,” namely making the public feel safer and satisfying the victims’ families’ need for closure. However, in his very first paragraph, Lin himself makes it overwhelmingly clear that the death penalty’s negative aspects far outweigh these perceived advantages.
He describes how, as a judge, he once sentenced a defendant to death, only to learn years later that the man had in fact been innocent. “I could have spared his life,” Lin wrote.
This is exactly what can and will always happen when capital punishment is carried out.
It is impossible to rule out the killing of innocents. This is no “collateral damage.” It is a life wrongfully taken, a crime committed by the state that cannot be undone. Thus, while everything may be carried out in accordance with the law, the state in effect sometimes acts no better than the criminals it wants to punish. The slightest possibility of this happening has to be ruled out, in the name of both humanity and common sense. That is only possible by abandoning the death penalty.
In the current debate, many people complain that the victims’ families are not being listened to enough. I want to ask: Who thinks of the families of those falsely accused and killed? What consolation can Lin or other proponents of the death penalty offer those whose lives were destroyed by taking away their loved ones, accusing them of a crime they did not commit and shooting them dead? There is nothing that justifies their suffering.
It is completely irrelevant how often this happens relative to the execution of criminals who were indeed guilty. One life wrongfully taken is one too many. Lin himself gives evidence that it has happened in Taiwan before. Taiwanese have to stop this terrible injustice from ever happening again. In a country where for decades the death penalty was used to kill thousands under various pretexts, often for just speaking out for their rights or for criticizing the government, it is time to move ahead.
Anyone who thinks there is some justification for the death penalty should ask one simple question: Does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong?
KLAUS BARDENHAGEN
Taipei
Any positive news on China?
I have been reading the Taipei Times on a daily basis for about five years. I have been enjoying it, and I think the Taipei Times is so much better than its counterpart the China Post, but there is one thing that annoys me.
To my knowledge, the Taipei Times has not published a positive piece on China for many years.
The Taipei Times relies on news agencies like Reuters, AFP and AP for its supply of international news. Since I, also read US and European magazines and newspapers, I know that these news agencies occasionally write about positive developments in China.
Clearly editors at the Taipei Times are choosing to deliberately ignore good news from China, though bad news does invariably make it into the paper.
I believe in democracy and I believe in human rights. I believe that Taiwan should be a democracy forever.
But I also believe that in politics there is no black and white, no good side and evil side, and I believe that this kind of worldview is perhaps the most dangerous of all.
There must be some good news coming out of such a huge country as China, and if someone tells me that there’s not then I regard this person as not credible.
JENS KASTNER
Taipei
Squirrels not so cute
The front-page picture on Friday was pretty enough. It was a picture of children feeding squirrels. However, I wonder why the Taipei Times didn’t bother to mention how dangerous these types of activities can be.
The picture in question, (and front-page pictures quite often have nothing to do with any front-page story) entitled “Rodent Surprise” explained that squirrels have become tame all over the city.
In Canada, we are encouraged to prevent pet dogs from licking traces of squirrel urine in case the squirrels have rabies and/or other diseases. So, although they are very cute creatures, they still pose a great danger. Wild animals carry diseases and humans should interact with them at a distance. Children should not feed squirrels ... nobody should. They are animals, and they can forage.
Please remind readers of the hidden dangers behind cute pictures.
HARRY ADAMOPOULOS
Taipei
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS