Public outrage over the killing of a Taiwanese fisherman by a Philippine government vessel last week is more than a national sentiment. The tragic event is a reminder of the dangerous situation Taiwanese fishermen have faced over the years operating in disputed waters, and adds a new incident in ongoing conflicts over the South China Sea. President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration must take a tough stance to protect our fishermen’s rights and resolve fishing disputes between the two countries.
Under pressure from the public, Ma on Saturday issued an ultimatum to the Philippines, demanding that it arrest those responsible for the death of the fisherman, issue a formal apology, compensate the victim’s family and launch negotiations on fishery agreements with Taiwan.
Ma said that if Manila failed to respond to these demands within 72 hours, the government would freeze Philippine worker applications, recall the Republic of China (ROC) representative in Manila and ask the Philippine representative in Taiwan to return to Manila to help in the investigation.
In view of Manila’s defense of the shooting as having been carried out while trying to prevent illegal fishing in its waters, the ultimatum will hardly pressure Philippine authorities to take responsibility for the incident. Tougher efforts are needed to protect Taiwanese fishermen’s rights and maintain national dignity.
Rival territorial claims in the South China Sea among competing nations vying for valuable fishing and energy resources have caused tensions for years, and Taiwanese fishermen have been arrested and detained by the Philippines in the past.
By opening fire on the Taiwanese fishing boat and killing the fisherman, the Philippines has violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which bans use of force against any unarmed fishing boat. The Ma administration should not passively wait for “positive responses” from the Philippines.
In addition to intensifying patrols in disputed waters to protect fishermen’s fishing rights, the government should demand that Manila immediately start negotiating a fishery agreement.
The newly signed Taiwan-Japan fisheries agreement covering the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), which allows fishing vessels from both countries to operate in a large area within the designated zone without being subject to the jurisdiction of the other side, should serve as a model for a pact with Manila.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Saturday gave Philippine Representative Antonio Basilio a copy of the Taiwan-Japan fisheries agreement, but the Philippine government has yet to respond to the proposal.
The Philippines’ adherence to a “one China” policy has been a major political obstacle to signing fisheries agreement with Taiwan in the past, and tensions in the South China Sea have been raised in recent months due to China’s claims of its sovereignty over the area.
The government’s success in concluding 17 years of negotiations with Japan and expanding fishing rights in the East China Sea came at a time when diplomatic tension between China and Japan has escalated.
In the attempt to negotiate an agreement with the Philippines, the government should consider the leverage we can use and create more advantages if it seeks to follow the negotiation model of the Taiwan-Japan fisheries agreement.
After the Ma administration issued its ultimatum to the Philippines, one thing was clear: The public demands a tough stance from the government. The authorities must show their determination. It must bring more pressure to bear on Manila to negotiate and ensure there will not be a repeat of Thursday’s incident.
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS