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.”
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
RSS