Taiwanese human rights advocates were joined by several foreign counterparts on Thursday in calling for an independent national human rights commission to be established, one that actually has the power to conduct investigations. However, their appeal will likely end up being just another statement in a debate about commissions that goes back decades.
There has been talk about establishing an official rights commission since January 2000, shortly before the first transfer of power from a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration. The key sticking point over the years has been whether such a commission would be an independent agency or part of the government and, if the latter, which branch of government should administer it.
The gulf between the pan-blue and pan-green camps has also been a hindrance, as it has been since the late 1970s, when the then-KMT government pre-empted opposition moves to create a non-government organization (NGO) for human rights by establishing the Chinese Human Rights Association in 1979.
In those days there could only be one organization for any specific activity registered with the government and so the first one to register became the de facto NGO and applications by subsequent groups for recognition were denied, whether it was a women’s group or labor union. This forced the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, established by members of the tangwai (黨外, outside the party), to operate illegally until it was able to win recognition in 1995.
Fourteen years ago, the Chinese Human Rights Association argued that the work of a rights commission should focus on educating the public and advising the government. It also thought the commission should be placed under its remit. While the association had been active in promoting human rights, it was still seen as very much a pro-KMT group.
Others felt such a commission should produce annual reports on the state of human rights in Taiwan and create a human rights index for the nation. Still others wanted a commission that would be empowered to investigate abuses of the White Terror era.
Early on in former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) time in office, there was an effort to establish a national commission that could investigate rights abuses, issue annual reports, suggest amendments to improve legal protection of citizens’ rights and push for Taiwan’s participation in international human-rights associations. Those efforts went nowhere in the face of KMT legislative intransigence.
In 2009, the legislature ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) signed them into law.
Ma marked Human Rights Day in 2010 by establishing an 18-member human rights commission under the leadership of then-vice president Vincent Siew (蕭萬長). The commission was made up of four government officials, including Siew, and 14 rights “experts.” Ma said it would establish rights policies and produce annual reports. However, it had no authority to investigate or review human rights violations.
Any complaints about the built-in ineffectiveness of the new organization were countered by officials noting that the Cabinet already had a task force to promote human rights, while the Control Yuan had its own human rights protection commission.
Four years on and Taiwan still lacks a national human rights institution worthy of its name or one that conforms to the Paris Principles adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993. Those principles call for a rights institution that is funded by a nation’s government, but is independent of it. Such a body reviews complaints about rights violations, assists in transitional justice processes and helps in the development of democratic institutions.
If it is up to the KMT, Taiwan will wait a long time for a true rights commission, one that has teeth.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS