Former minister of justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) strongly supports the abolishment of the death penalty and recently released an open letter in which she discussed her ideals about the abolishment of capital punishment, stating that abolishing the death penalty is a way of guaranteeing the “right to life.”
Wang’s staunch support for abolishing the death penalty and the views she expressed about how the death penalty should be suspended caused an immediate stir in public opinion. Many argued that this would violate the principle of conducting administrative affairs in a legal fashion, and was another contributing factor to Wang’s resignation.
Even after her resignation, capital punishment has remained a highly contentious issue, with different sides fighting back and forth over seemingly conflicting issues like the “right to life” and “judicial justice.”
Abolishment of the death penalty is a trend in human rights that is spreading around the world and is an idea based on principles including the right to life and universal human rights.
However, if we objectively look at Taiwan, where more than 74 percent of the population are in favor of retaining the death penalty, we can see that most people consider it the best possible deterrence to would-be criminals. In addition, people have since ancient times viewed retributive justice as appropriate and proper. The idea that murderers should pay for their crime with their own life is deeply ingrained in people’s minds, while some also believe the death penalty offers a form of compensatory comfort to the victim’s family.
It remains to be seen whether the 44 confirmed death row inmates will be executed according to current legislation now that newly appointed Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) has taken office.
Point 4 of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Taiwan approved and ratified last year, states: “Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.” It will be interesting to see how the government handles those sentenced to death who apply for amnesty according to the covenant. This is something all government departments concerned should think about carefully.
For the moment, while the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is still considering the gradual abolishment of the death penalty, the only way to handle the legal aid procedures that will be required by those on death row is to amend and expand the Pardon Act (赦免法) and establish an appeals committee to handle related cases and set up a detailed set of deliberation procedures. Otherwise, if the MOJ continues to carry out the death penalty while the debate about the death sentence is still raging, it would not only be in conflict with the two recently signed international covenants on human rights, but would also indicate an extreme lack of resolve on the government’s behalf when it comes to putting the two covenants into practice.
The MOJ has been promoting and establishing a task force to research the death penalty and its abolition (逐步廢除死刑研究推動小組), as well as planning other measures that could lead to the abolishment of capital punishment, such as improving public security, offering better protection to victims, alternatives for punishment once the death sentence is abolished, improving prison and rehabilitation management and disseminating information about the abolishment of the death penalty to the public. However, it is preferable if the gradual abolishment of capital punishment can be achieved on the basis of social consensus and once all doubts surrounding its abolishment have been dispelled.
Before alternatives are established, however, the government really needs to pay attention to the social environment and make gradual adjustments in accordance with public opinion while also striving to balance “the right to life” and “judicial justice.”
Whether to keep or abolish the death penalty is a complex issue. Apart from showing concern for the right to life of those sentenced to death, the government needs to pay attention to the rights of the victims and consider the feelings of the victim’s family while also finding suitable substitutes for the death penalty. One option the government can consider as a substitute is life imprisonment.
The death penalty is not something that can be abolished overnight. Time is needed before a social consensus on abolishing the death penalty is reached.
Taiwan still has a lot of work to do concerning education and the dissemination of information regarding the abolishment of capital punishment. If the government views the ultimate goal of abolishing the death penalty as a path to judicial reform and a way of putting the ideals of human rights into practice, then it should draw up a complete set of measures and alternatives based on the current state of Taiwan’s social environment and developments in the rule of law, come up with supplementary measures and alternatives, increase the quality of education about human rights and correct the prevalent social attitude that people who have done wrong deserve ultimate retribution. This is the only way we can begin to gain public consensus on the abolishment of the death penalty and change the nation for the better.
Lee Yung-ran is a lawyer and president of the Chinese Association for Human Rights.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry