It is a shame to realize that you can get away with murder in Taiwan, never reaping the penalties for your misdeeds, at least if you were a senior military officer at the time of the crime.
Former ministers of national defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏) and Lee Tien-yu (李天羽), former air force commander-in-chief Huang Hsien-jung (黃顯榮) and the many other military officers involved in the Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) travesty of justice can rest assured that they are unlikely to ever see the inside of a courtroom as defendants.
Chiang, a 21-year-old airman, was executed in 1997 for the sexual abuse and murder of a five-year-old girl on an airbase in 1996. Despite a weeks-long investigation and questioning by Taipei police and military police — after a colleague had alleged that Chiang might be involved — the case remained open until Chen ordered the air force’s counterintelligence unit to take over. Chiang was then subjected to 37 hours of interrogation, including physical and psychological torture, and, not surprisingly, he confessed. He was court-martialed and executed.
After years of battling to clear Chiang’s name, his family finally got some relief in May 2010, when the Control Yuan censured a military court over the case, citing seven major flaws in the trial. In January last year, the Ministry of Defense officially issued an apology over the case, while the following month President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) first apologized to the family and then visited them. A retrial finally cleared Chiang’s name in September last year, and the following month the Ministry of National Defense said it would pay NT$103.18 million (US$3.4 million) to the family in compensation.
For Chiang’s mother, Wang Tsai-lien (王彩蓮), money will not make up for her loss. Last year she sued Chen and other military officers for dereliction of duty over her son’s wrongful execution, but the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office decided in May last year that there was nothing it could do to remedy the matter.
It affirmed that decision late last month after Wang appealed, saying that while Chen and the other officers had resorted to torture to extract a confession, it could not intervene in a military trial. As for the allegations of illegal detention and abuse of power leading to a death, the office said that the term of litigating the violations had already expired.
That might be true, but the office then rubbed salt in the family’s wounds by saying that while Chen and the other officers had sought to close the case and win accolades for speedily resolving the much-publicized case, they did not have any intention of killing Chiang.
No intention of killing Chiang? Why the 37 hours of torture and interrogation? What did they think would happen to someone who confessed to the rape and murder of a five-year-old? Did they think a military court, amid all the uproar that the case had generated, was just going to sentence such a defendant to a couple of years in prison? These were career military officers who knew the punishment for infractions of duty as well as more serious charges. Chen clearly set the wheels of injustice turning by referring Chiang’s case to the counterintelligence agency instead of the judiciary, a violation of the Code of Court Martial Procedure.
The spokesperson for the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office said if Wang was dissatisfied with the office’s ruling, she could try to appeal again. It looks like she may have to spend the rest of her life appealing, as the system ensures that the big players remain immune from punishment. It is easier to say sorry than to actually take action to ensure that similar miscarriages of justice do not occur again.
Wang and other members of Chiang’s family waited 14 years for his conviction to be overturned and his name cleared. It looks like they may have to wait much longer, perhaps forever, to see the men responsible for Chiang’s death suitably punished for their egregious dereliction of duty. That is truly shameful.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS