President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) nominees for Judicial Yuan president and vice president last month faced serious criticism, with many people questioning the candidates’ backgrounds. The government responded by saying “people did as they were told during the Martial Law era.” The statement is neither right nor helpful in defending the candidates.
The truth is, under martial law, most people chose to avoid politics, and preferred not to challenge the authorities. They wanted, after all, to stay out of prison. However, they also wanted to avoid becoming accomplices to injustice or becoming brainwashed.
Members of the public often conform to authorities, generally out of fear or intimidation. For them, this is a matter of personal choice and has little or no consequence on other people’s lives. A judicial official, on the other hand, can seriously undermine human rights and justice should they choose to simply “do as they are told.” There is a huge difference between the two.
During the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) party-state rule, officials in the judicial, intelligence, education and propaganda departments typically served to secure the interests of the regime. Much of the injustices that occurred during that time were a result of such people’s decisions to “do as they were told.” If they show no evidence of remorse for their transgressions, how can people expect them to promote transitional justice?
At the time, those with legal expertise could choose to become lawyers or follow a completely different career path if they refused to support an authoritarian regime. If they wanted to be judicial officers, but did not care about judicial independence and would rather take orders from political authorities, they would be guilty of assisting the government and of preventing justice from being served.
An intelligence agent who follows orders inevitably commits heinous acts to secure the interests of the regime. The murder of Chen Wen-chen (陳文成) in 1981, the murder of Henry Liu (劉宜良) in the US in 1984 and the murders of democracy activist Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) mother and twin daughters are all well-known cases.
In an authoritarian state, the purpose of education is to control the public by brainwashing them into compliance. Those in charge of education, propaganda and discipline are accomplices to this process. Fortunately, there are also people who choose to remain clear-headed and are aware of what is going on.
During the Kaohsiung Incident in 1979, following the arrest of many dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) activists by intelligence operatives, state-owned media outlets did all they could to defame the dangwai movement. While a group of Taiwanese students helped bring injustices to the attention of the international community, the government pressed charges against the arrested activists regardless, to suppress political dissent.
The defendants chose not to conform. They were the pioneers of Taiwanese democracy. In contrast, those working in the intelligence, propaganda and judicial departments, who chose to simply do as they were told, were accomplices to authoritarianism.
To nominate people who chose to enter the judicial system during the authoritarian era as the Judicial Yuan president and vice president, and expecting them to lead judicial reform, is a mistake. If they have a proven history of “doing as they were told” to suppress political dissent, they are simply not qualified for the posts. Upon reviewing the candidates, the Legislative Yuan must look into criminal cases they have handled in the past.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS