On Aug. 13, 1997, Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) was executed by the government for a crime it appears was committed by Hsu Jung-chou (許榮洲). He was neither the first nor the last to be murdered by Taiwan’s judicial system.
Last year, the same judicial system put another four citizens to death. They were executed following the resignation of former minister of justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), who fell on her own sword in her unnecessarily public opposition to the death penalty.
Wang’s resignation seemed to galvanize public opinion in favor of capital punishment, as Pai Bing-bing (白冰冰) and Lu Chin-te (陸晉德) whipped up the pressure on Wang and used their children’s deaths to promote the very un--Confucian concept of revenge as the best form of grieving a lost one. The debate seemed over — a majority of Taiwanese, it seemed, wanted to keep the death penalty. Their thirst for revenge was greater than their concern that the wrong person might be executed.
Now that a tiny fraction of the total number of deadly “mistakes” made by the judiciary during the past 66 years are becoming public, many Taiwanese and some politicians are suddenly outraged. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) personally apologized for Chiang’s death and asked for Chiang’s family to receive compensation.
Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) quoted Ma as saying such a mistake could not be allowed to happen again, that the administration would push for reform and the Ministry of National Defense would determine who was responsible for this miscarriage of justice and — this is the key phrase — “deal with those responsible in accordance with the law.” Of course, this is the same system of laws that allowed the military to execute Chiang in the first place.
However, what Ma did not say was that capital punishment itself is intrinsically wrong and inhumane. He did not, and will not, say this because either he doesn’t believe it to be wrong (only executing the wrong person is a violation of human rights) or because he fears going against public opinion (or Pai), in which case he has no stomach or spine for the human rights he touts.
We should not forget that Chiang’s case happened only 15 years ago, yet the statute of limitations means that those responsible for his death are likely to go unpunished.
Democratization was not an even process — the judicial system and many of its laws and processes are still relics of the Martial Law era and the brutal Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) dictatorship that imposed it. We would all do well to not forget the past that shapes the present. Mistakes are still being made today.
It is about time that Taiwanese take off their blinders and discard their love for tit-for-tat justice. It is hypocrisy to demand the death penalty for murderers while being outraged over the killing of an innocent by the same method.
If we don’t want mistakes to happen, the only protection from the judicial murder of innocents is to ban the death penalty outright.
ROC’s dwindling space
President Ma recently told foreign dignitaries that the international space for the Republic of China (ROC) has enlarged simultaneously with his policy toward China utilizing the principle of the (so-called) “1992 consensus” and “one China with each side having its own interpretation.” He cited examples such as visa-waiver privileges for Taiwanese visiting the EU and participation in the World Health Assembly (WHA).
The EU visa exemption has nothing to do with Ma’s policy toward China. It is a reward to the long-term credibility of Taiwanese visitors to the EU. Ma should thank Taiwanese, rather than priding himself on his irrelevant China policy.
It is possibly true that the WHA participation — as an observer subjected to annual review— is the outcome of Ma’s “one China” policy, but this policy rules out the possibility of Taiwan’s participation as a member of the WHA, the WHO, and the UN.
This explains why Ma does not want to apply for Taiwan’s membership in these world organizations for fear of conflicting with his “one China” policy. Ma now entrusts China to speak for Taiwan in the international arena. A good example of this is the fact that Taiwanese issues regarding the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) are now apparently handled by China.
The recent deportation of 14 Taiwanese by the Philippines to China and the cancellation of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s visit to Taiwan are other examples of China’s pressure on Taiwan. The international space for the ROC has shrunk; the name has also been downgraded to “Chinese Taipei.”
Even the domestic space for the ROC has dwindled as exemplified by hiding ROC flags from Chinese officials and sportspeople visiting Taiwan.
The ROC with respective description might become the ROC with deception.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new