On Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) announced the establishment of the Presidential Office Human Rights Consultative Committee and said that according to two UN covenants signed last year — the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — all signatory nations are required to establish a human rights commission.
He also said that to ensure the two covenants were smoothly implemented, the government would set up the human rights consultative committee in the Presidential Office, instead of attaching it to the Cabinet, the Judicial Yuan or the Control Yuan.
Indeed, human rights, the rule of law and democracy are the three main pillars of a modern constitutional government, but it is both frustrating and ironic to hear Ma talk about establishing such a committee.
Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) proposed the idea of human rights legislation in his inaugural address on May 20, 2000. He also promoted the establishment of a national human rights commission and, on Oct 24, 2000, the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Commission was established.
Whether it was called the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Commission or by its later name, the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Committee, it achieved much in the promotion and protection of human rights, and worked toward the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrining the two UN covenants into law.
In 2001, Liberal International awarded Chen with its Prize for Freedom in recognition of his hard work in, and contributions to, human rights.
Unfortunately, when the legislature was reviewing the government’s budget for 2006 after Ma’s election as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman in August 2005, the KMT used its legislative majority to pass a resolution demanding that the Presidential Office dissolve the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Committee, saying there was no legal basis for such a committee.
Even though at that time the regulations in the Basic Code Governing Central Administrative Agencies (中央機關組織基準法) stated that agencies were allowed to set up new groups to meet their needs and that the staff for such groups should be made up of staff from the related agencies, the political situation was such that the legislature could force the closure and disbandment of the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Committee.
The Republic of China Office of the President Organization Act (中華民國總統府組織法) makes no mention of setting up a human rights consultative committee in the Presidential Office. Now that Ma is president and no longer just chairman of the KMT, he has become a champion for human rights.
When comparing this withhow Ma, as KMT chairman, oversaw the termination of the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Committee, one cannot help but wonder if human rights work merely involves talking and showing how different one political party is to another.
The way Ma says that what was wrong yesterday is the right thing to do today; and that what was wrong when it was done by the Democratic Progressive Party is right now because the KMT is doing it, has become the first obstacle to the new committee’s human rights work.
It also shows how inconsistent Ma has been through the years.
Cho Chun-ying is a former deputy director-general of the Presidential Office’s department of public affairs and an associate professor at Chang Jung Catholic University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS