The suspect behind the murders on Taipei’s Mass Rapid Transit system’s Bannan Line, Cheng Chieh (鄭捷), was described by his university on Thursday as part of “our family.”
“Cheng is not just a sophomore at the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering who transferred to Tunghai University last summer, but a student who has made us realize overnight that everyone at Tunghai is our family, no matter how downcast or happy they appear to be. We love them, but we don’t love them enough,” the letter addressed to university faculty, staff and students read.
The words showed how the school has taken responsibility. It provides a stark contrast to other recent examples of statements put out by officials, politicians and media commentators which mercilessly condemn Cheng. Those statements about Cheng have a similar tone to that of the condemnation of the Philippines Coast Guard personnel who a year ago shot dead fisherman Hung Shih-cheng (洪石成) at sea: They treat Cheng as if he was not a national of this nation.
Along with the denouncements of Cheng came expressions of shock, sadness, anger and disbelief at the incident, and no doubt has been raised about whether the death sentence should be applied to Cheng.
The reactions reflect people’s intent to distance themselves from Cheng, whom they label a person with certain antisocial personality characteristics that they believe led him to commit the killing spree. They think that such a crime should not have happened in Taiwan. For people of this opinion, the death penalty is the easy way out.
However, one of the many weaknesses of this view is that there might have been unknown things which happened to him, motivating Cheng to commit this hideous crime — in which four people were killed and 24 injured in just four minutes — and this would make the crime more complex than just his character traits.
He should not be the only one to carry the blame. Putting him to death will not deter crimes like this, not only because using capital punishment as deterrent is questionable, but because any larger structural problems that might help shape criminal activity in the nation will still induce people to commit the crimes if they remain unaddressed.
Tunghai University’s letter read that it expected its students “to walk a step closer to friends, look out for them, and to talk to them more often.” The university said that a lesson learned from this crime was that “each one of us could be anyone’s angel.”
The reflection Tunghai University has offered on the incident provides food for thought.
There are many lessons to be learned from a homicide case. Taiwan could have learned some from the harm caused to society by previous homicide cases, but it has not.
It tends to blame a suspect rather than trying to figure out how the assailant arrived at the point of their crime. It thinks that the nation is getting safer and that victims and their families are consoled when a criminal is sentenced to death and when a death row inmate is executed.
The issues deserve our careful study. As Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote: “Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer. Nothing is more difficult than to understand him.”
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
Taiwan’s leading position in the global semiconductor industry is not, as some claim, based on misconceptions, a result of “stealing.” It was built upon formal, transparent and costly technology transfer agreements between the Taiwanese government and US enterprises half a century ago. According to the oral history of Hu Ding-hua (胡定華), a pioneer in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, the origin of Taiwan’s integrated circuit (IC) technology dates back to the “IC pilot factory” in the 1970s. The implementation of this project fully complied with international commercial standards and legal procedures. First, the project completed formal contract signing and payment. In 1975,
RSS