As a former governor of Alaska (2002 to 2006) and also having served for 22 years in the US Senate, I have a strong interest in US relations with East Asia. Within that context, Taiwan is a place close to my heart, because I personally got to know the two men who pushed Taiwan in the direction of democracy, former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
Since that time, Taiwan has gone through some more cycles of change of government, which is an inherent part of a democratic system.
Indeed, in January, I headed the observer mission of the International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan (ICFET), an international group of 19 academics from eight countries.
Our report on our findings is scheduled to come out in the next few weeks and I can already say that our conclusion is that the elections were mostly free, but only partly fair. You can read more details when the report comes out.
However, my comments here are not about the elections, but about the overall direction of the country.
It is undoubtedly clear that Taiwan lives in the shadow of an aggressive neighbor, but it should not allow that to determine its future as a free and democratic nation.
Taiwanese have worked long and hard for their democracy, and they need to continue to work hard to preserve and nurture their freedom and liberty. This work needs to be done internally, when they assess the functioning of the system of checks and balances — the legislature needs to be a stronghold of democracy where people with vision look after the longer-term interests of their constituents.
Freedom and liberty also need to be nurtured in the judicial system.
Many observers say that the judiciary is still strongly influenced by the politics of the ruling party and that there is a strong need for judicial reform. The legal community needs to champion the democratic process in Taiwan.
This brings me to a very specific issue of injustice — the way Chen is being treated. I am not discussing whether he was or was not guilty — although a number of international observers, such as Jerome Cohen, question whether he received a fair trial.
I am specifically focusing on his need for adequate medical treatment and the conditions under which he is being detained.
Most recently, on May 23, Chen was allowed to go to Cheng Kung Memorial Hospital for only six hours. Doctors said that they would need much more time to treat him adequately and that the six-hour time span had been a “political condition” imposed by the authorities.
The right thing to do would be for the authorities to release him on medical parole.
The second aspect is the conditions under which he is being detained — a small cell, with no bed, chair or desk.
If he wants to write, he has to lie down on the floor. Such treatment is unconscionable and reminiscent of the Soviet Union more than 45 years ago, not Taiwan in 2012.
The least that needs to be done is to give him an adequate cell, with a chair, desk and regular bed. Like other prisoners, he should be allowed to work outside his cell in the daytime, engaging in some physical activity. Finally, he should have full access to his lawyer and comprehensive medical care.
Dealing with controversial issues like this is not easy, but a fair and humanitarian resolution is essential if Taiwan wants to be considered a full democracy, worthy of international respect.
Frank Murkowski is a former governor of Alaska and a US senator.
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
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
RSS