DNA database dilemma
While Ralph Kirby makes clear the pitfalls of any DNA database and expresses a sentiment with which I would broadly agree, he is not quite correct in his remarks regarding the UK (“Letter,” April 19, page 8).
There is no “European Supreme Court.” To be clear, it was the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), as opposed to the European Court of Justice, that ruled (in December 2008) that keeping the DNA profiles of people either not charged or found not guilty of a crime for an indefinite period was a violation of the right to privacy.
Contrary to Kirby’s claims, and despite the UK government dragging its heels over the ruling, it did in fact legislate a “definite” time period — six years — that for other reasons did not come into force. It was to have applied to England and Wales, not Scotland, which has a separate legal system. In fact, the ECHR was influenced in its judgement by the apparently more enlightened system of DNA retention used in Scotland.
In February, the UK government passed legislation to have only convicted criminals’ profiles held indefinitely in the database. Profiles of those not convicted of any crime (more than 1 million) would be removed. Those arrested in the future, but not convicted, will either not be retained at all in the case of minor offenses (unless otherwise suspected of terrorism), or retained for three years, extendable to five, if arrested but not convicted of a serious offense. This will bring England and Wales in line with Scottish law.
The rate of error in the database that Kirby claims is not known in the UK is in fact always known in testing — it depends on the sample, but even allowing for statistical errors, it’s usually 1 in a million.
He mentions that the known instances where DNA matches with the wrong individual (one or two cases) could be the “tip of an iceberg” and that such databases “dramatically” increase the chances of a miscarriage of justice.
This is unlikely precisely because of the extremely low statistical likelihood of getting an incorrect match in the first place — but it’s correct to acknowledge that very tiny possibility, especially where the database is simply trawled for a match (a cold hit).
Multiple testing of such matches (not done in the UK) would mitigate this. Interestingly, a report last year by the British parliament’s Home Affairs Committee noted that while it’s difficult to ascertain with certainty, the percentage of cases in which the UK’s National DNA Database (the largest of its kind in the Western world) was thought to have played a key role in securing prosecution was 0.3 percent. This at least questions the utility of the database, the object of which was to link individuals to crimes that they later commit.
It also again questions the figure offered in the original article by Sandy Yeh (葉毓蘭) that claimed a “100-fold” increase in the cases solved in the US, if the claim is that these cases could only have been solved with DNA evidence (“Database for DNA key to full sex crime law,” April 13, page 8).
DNA evidence in the UK, however, has had sometimes spectacular successes in helping to prove not just guilt, but also the innocence of those who have suffered miscarriages of justice prior to DNA testing. However, it is also important to remember that a DNA database match is only one piece of evidence that would need to be presented to a court: A DNA match alone does not prove “guilt,” nor alone should it secure prosecution.
PAUL DEACON
Neihu, Taipei
KMT’s latest ploy
Claiming cost savings and despite opposition from the public and the Democratic Progressive Party, the Central Election Commission has announced its plan to move the presidential election two months ahead of schedule and consolidate it with the legislative elections.
The move is uncalled for and unheard of in a mature democracy, where normally an amendment to the election law has to be passed first and take effect only after the following presidential election. Besides, the cost for running these two important elections should have been budgeted for the fiscal year, and will save a mere US$15 million. (You could save more by not conducting any elections.)
Obviously, this is another political ploy aimed at garnering votes for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its candidates. Instead of staying impartial and promoting fair elections, the commission has chosen to jump into the political arena and become a pawn for the KMT.
The brazen move again proves the KMT’s willingness to do anything within its disposal, legally or illegally, to hang on to power. The KMT apparently holds no fear whatsoever of any political reprisal from people or of confrontation from the opposition.
The KMT and company have plenty of cash in their pockets; they have control of the media, the legislature and the judicial system; and they have support from the military, civil servants and teachers — owned and paid for by the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party.
Yet, its lack of public support and lack of achievements in governing have prompted the KMT to take this blatant action. Since Ma has been in power, Taiwan has crept backward to something more like an autocracy rife with political ploys like this one.
Fortunately, for Taiwan and its people, they still have a vote and they’d better, before it’s all too late, get it right this time.
YANG JI-CHARNG
Ohio
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
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with