Tuesday was not the first time death-row inmates have been executed to serve the political interests of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration since he took office in 2008. Like the executions in 2010, 2011, 2012 and last year, the latest use of the death penalty was a manifestation of the power of the state when the authorities face a challenge from the public regarding its legitimacy.
The timing showed that the Ma administration has no intention of abolishing the death penalty, although five years have passed since it ratified two UN covenants on human rights in May 2009: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The legislature also enacted a law for their domestic application later that year.
In its defense, the Ministry of Justice said that the executions were not politically motivated and had been scheduled earlier this year, before the recent protests over the cross-strait service trade agreement and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
Even so, the executions could have been rescheduled when these controversial issues grabbed the public’s attention, if it had been the Ma administration’s conviction that the death penalty should never serve as an instrument of governance.
The reasons the executions were carried out at that time are very much tied to the mentality of the Ma administration. The use of the death penalty is a tool of political control and repression.
By carrying out the death penalty, the most extreme sanction available to the state, the embattled Ma administration is trying to spread fear and intimidation among the population and deter protests. On one hand, it demonstrated the extent of state power as a warning to the public. On the other hand, it belittled the protesters and disregarded their demands.
The executions were also aimed at distracting public attention from the thorny issues the government has been struggling with and to win some sympathy from ardent supporters of the death penalty.
The government also saw the current upheaval as an opportunity to bury any bad publicity and carried out the death penalty without caution because the procedural injustice would receive far less attention from the media and the public during a time of social chaos.
People opposed to the death penalty have pointed out that all five prisoners executed had been convicted under highly questionable circumstances. Among them, brothers Tu Ming-lang (杜明郎) and Tu Ming-hsiung (杜明雄) were found guilty in a murder case in China based solely on evidence provided by China’s Public Security Bureau. The executed Liu Yen-kuo (劉炎國) was not allowed to make an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court for a retrial of his case by the prosecutor-general, because the position was temporarily held by an acting prosecutor-general when his lawyer filed the request with the Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office and the office took just one hour to deny his request.
A total of 26 death-row inmates have been executed in five group executions during Ma’s presidency. The miscarriage of justice in the case of Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), who had his name cleared in 2011, 14 years after being wrongfully executed when he was 21 years old, did not prompt the government to consider removing the death penalty from the statute book. That the execution of six death-row inmates in December 2012 was a violation of the two UN human rights covenants, as Ma had not yet responded to their appeals for amnesty filed in March 2010, did not persuade the Ma administration to respect the stipulation that authorities must allow all legal appeals to be exhausted.
Ma’s repeatedly declared goal of backing efforts to adhere to international human rights standards and abolish the death penalty remains nothing but empty rhetoric.
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
This year, India and Taiwan can look back on 25 years of so-called unofficial ties. This provides an occasion to ponder over how they can deepen collaboration and strengthen their relations. This reflection must be free from excitement and agitation caused by the ongoing China-US great power jostling as well as China’s aggressive actions against many of its neighbors, including India. It must be based on long-term trends in bilateral engagement. To begin with, India and Taiwan, thus far, have had relations constituted by various activities, but what needs to be thought about now is whether they can transform their ties
On Thursday last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a barnstorming speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California, titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future.” The speech set out in no uncertain terms the insoluble ideological divide between a totalitarian, communist China and the democratic, free-market values of the US. It was also a full-throated call to arms for all nations of the free world to rally behind the US and defeat China. Pompeo elaborated on a clear distinction between China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in an attempt to recalibrate the
As Taiwan is engulfed in worries about Chinese infiltration, news reports have revealed that power inverters made by China’s Huawei Technologies Co are used in the solar panels on the top of the Legislative Yuan’s Zhenjiang House (鎮江會館) on Zhenjiang Street in Taipei. However, what is even more worrying is that Taiwan’s new national electronic identification card (eID) has been subcontracted to the French security firm and eID maker Idemia, which has not only cooperated with the Chinese Public Security Bureau to manufacture eIDs in China, but also makes the new identification cards being issued in Hong Kong. There might be more