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
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS