Hong Kong democracy campaigner Joshua Wong (黃之鋒) recently made two visits to Taiwan. During the first visit on Jan. 7, Wong, with Nathan Law (羅冠聰) and several other Hong Kong lawmakers, were confronted as they arrived at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport by a violent “welcoming committee” of more than 100 pro-China protesters with suspected links to criminal gangs.
During Wong’s latest visit to Taiwan on Monday last week, he was escorted by police at the airport and there was a heavy police presence at the venue where he addressed a group of Taiwanese students.
Wong later made the frank observation that “Taiwanese police seem much more conscientious than their counterparts in Hong Kong.”
However, behind such a favorable comparison lies an important question: Does Taiwan really believe in the value of democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law?
These fundamental values not only affect how earnestly the police fulfill their job, but, in the longer term, will also affect both Taiwan’s status within the international community and its national security.
Although the visits to and interaction with Taiwan by politically engaged young Hong Kongers have been labeled as a teaming-up between Taiwanese and Hong Kong independence advocates, this label originates from the bullies in Beijing and is a textbook example of using false claims to discredit individuals.
The recent clashes in Taiwan and Hong Kong have strong similarities. Both were counter-demonstrations and attacks organized by pro-China political forces.
The organizers had applied for police protection before the clashes in Hong Kong, but despite that, peaceful protesters were still assaulted.
However, in Taiwan, despite the police not having been informed in advance, 13 people have been reported by police and taken into custody, which is why Wong praised Taiwanese police for being “conscientious.”
The reason for the dedication of Taiwanese police in protecting the public is, first, because Taiwan is a democracy and its public is vigilant about violence becoming mixed with politics.Taiwanese will not countenance any political force that oversteps the boundary between peaceful protest and violence.
Second, Taiwan has recently experienced a change of government, with a majority of the electorate having entrusted the Democratic Progressive Party with a clear political mandate to reverse the mistakes made during the past eight years of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pro-Beijing government and to return Taiwan to a more enlightened path.
Third, Taiwan’s democracy is established in such a way that it holds to account the offices of state by defining not just the ethos of government and law enforcement agencies, but also the measures they may employ in the administration of government.
If any of the law enforcement agencies fall short in their duty to protect Taiwan’s democratic way of life, then their reason for existence will be called into question.
Taiwanese have made a collective choice to live under the democratic rule of law, in stark contrast to China, whose society is a world apart from democratic Taiwan. Unfortunately, the same thing now also increasingly applies to the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong.
As Taiwanese are well aware, the defense and maintenance of fundamental freedoms and rights requires continual vigilance on the part of the public, for they can be taken away at any time.
The most obvious example of this is that although the legislature in 2009 passed two UN covenants on human rights — the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — and the government ratified the Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法), the public began to distrust the Ma administration on human rights issues.
One example is the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement between Taiwan and China, passed by Ma’s government in June 2011, which left many Taiwanese with a feeling of deprivation due to the resulting economic inequality.
Furthermore, ever since the July 2013 protests against forced evictions and demolitions in Miaoli County’s Dapu Borough (大埔) — where police used heavy-handed tactics and illegally detained protesters — a series of peaceful protest movements were violently suppressed through the Ma administration’s abuse of state power.
These examples demonstrate that passing laws on human rights will not, in itself, safeguard the public against the violent instincts of dictatorial policymakers.
It is for this reason that the Ma regime was booted out of office last year.
A three-day meeting was launched in Taipei on Monday last week to review Taiwan’s second national human rights report, which addressed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Vice President Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁), who spoke at the meeting’s opening ceremony, told UN human rights inspectors that the government aims for Taiwan to become a standard-bearer for human rights in Asia.
To achieve this, Chen said that the government will go one step further by incorporating three core international human rights treaties into Taiwanese law: the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
Implementing human rights guarantees is an important means for Taiwan to join the international conversation and reflect upon its past. Taiwan must make sure that it is truly worthy of becoming the torchbearer for human rights in Asia.
The freedoms of person, thought, speech, movement and assembly are all fundamental human rights.
Not only is Beijing rapidly withdrawing the freedoms of Hong Kong’s residents, in the past few years it has also, through the use of specially constructed channels, made inroads into Taiwanese politics and business.
China has worked hard to nurture a network of proxies in Taiwan and, by handing out special benefits, formed a variety of one-way, secretive channels which enable it to freely and effortlessly manipulate and try to destroy Taiwan’s independence and freedoms.
It is essential that Taiwanese politicians put a stop to this situation and the recent violence at Taoyuan airport is a test of the determination to do that.
Taiwan’s greatest asset is its democracy; it is the protective shield that guarantees its freedom and independence. The police must conscientiously uphold democratic freedoms, but so too must the government — and the whole of society.
Translated by Edward Jones
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing