Mon, Jun 14, 2010 page8

• [ LETTERS ]

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  ECFA and individual rights

  Before the government presents a modified version of its planned economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) to the legislature for review, there will be ample opportunity for expressing opposition. Yet to whom should these expressions be made and of what sort should they be?

  I submit that it would be next to useless to direct some “unified” ECFA opposition to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators. They won’t listen to a largely southern, anti-­mainlander, pan-green, social-democratic voice — and, hell, why should they? They already know what that voice will say and they have known this for years.

  Vociferous opposition to an ECFA, however, may yet find its feet on quite different grounds — the rights of the individual.

  The legal right of governments to exercise more or less total control over trade has no moral basis. Only sovereign individuals free from coercion have any moral right to decide whether, and on what terms, they will exchange value for value. A government merely presumes the power to arrogate this right of individuals for its own disposal simply because it believe itself to have an effective monopoly over violence. That is, at the bottom, all there is to it.

  It is completely wrong to oppose the signing of an ECFA just because it will have a “disastrous effect” on Taiwan’s middle class. Why should the interests of the middle class trump those of other people? Are middle-class people the only ones whose lives, property and money matter? Are they the only ones whose children can legitimately expect any sort of future? Taiwan’s poorer people may well see some value in an influx of cheaper goods from China — do their interests not count? Are their economic prospects unimportant? Are their desperate attempts to save money for their children’s futures simply futile gestures decorating the dinner tables of the middle class?

  I put it to you — is this not an abstract form of cannibalism? A cannibalization of other people’s economic values?

  The right thing to do is to stand against an ECFA on social individualist grounds. No government — neither the one in Taipei nor the one in Beijing — has any moral right to exercise control over the trade that people may or may not otherwise freely agree to.

  As much as I detest the idea of aiding and abetting the fascist culture of government in China via trade, I would nevertheless seek to dissuade other people from engaging in such trade by using reason and appeals to enlightened self-interest, not through the arrogant presumption of brute force by the KMT government.

  MICHAEL FAGAN

  Tainan

  Society still hating

  The retention or abolition of the death penalty can be considered a reflection of a society’s values. Abolition shows that a society gives priority to upholding human rights. Retention suggests that values of hatred and vengeance linger in society.

  In Taiwan, there have recently been threats of violence made against death penalty abolitionists. This and the general tone of the death penalty debate shows a lack of maturity in society. Elements of society are still gripped by feelings of hatred.

  Justice is essential to a fair and harmonious society. It is achieved through a judicial process that gives balanced consideration to the rights and interests of all parties involved.

  However, the death penalty provides no guarantee of justice. Abolishing the death penalty doesn’t mean that people who commit crimes escape justice. There is still strong punishment in the form of long prison sentences.

  The death penalty also creates the risk of a gross miscarriage of justice when innocent people are executed. The Control Yuan recently found that Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), a member of the Air Force, was executed in 1997 following a flawed trial. Miscarriages of justice can and do occur in Taiwan and Chiang’s case is probably not the only one.

  This highlights the need for judicial reform in Taiwan. So far, there has been a lot of talk, but no action, on this issue from President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration. There needs to be confidence that trials are fair and there is respect for human rights.

  Basic human rights are a non-negotiable foundation of democracy.

  The failure of politicians to show leadership on the abolition of the death penalty and judicial reform is another sign of the retreat of human rights since Ma took office. Abolishing the death penalty would be an important step in reversing this trend.

  DAVID REID

  Taichung
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Xi, Trump differ on outcome of talks

  • 2

    Takaichi vows ‘golden age’ of ties with the US

  • 3

    Officer neglects shooting reports, goes to pizzeria

  • 4

    Taiwan unveils undersea cable security initiative

  • 5

    Taiwan is no bargaining chip: Rubio