More than 400 human rights defenders from all over the world gathered in Taipei from Monday to yesterday to discuss how to confront challenges to the universality of human rights. It was the first time in its nearly 100-year history that the Congress of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) was held in Asia.
The issue was front and center on the agenda as death row exoneree Hsu Tzu-chiang (徐自強) gave his powerful testimony during Monday morning’s opening ceremony — application of the death penalty is clearly inconsistent with international human rights standards.
I sat next to President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) as Hsu told us of how he was sentenced to death in 1996 and incarcerated for 16 years before he was released in 2012.
Hsu also told the story of 60-year-old Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順), who was sentenced to death in 1989 for murder, following an extremely flawed and unfair trial. Chiou has been behind bars for 31 years, the last eight of which have been on death row.
That afternoon, I headed an FIDH international delegation that visited the Taipei Detention Center, where Chiou is incarcerated. Our delegation also saw the execution site, and held a productive meeting with prison authorities and officials from the Agency of Corrections.
I cannot hide that spending time at the execution site was among the darkest and most important moments of my human rights work.
Chiou, along with 22 other death row inmates at the detention center, could be executed at any time. The detention center told us that death row inmates receive 30 minutes’ notice before being taken to the facility’s execution site. In many cases, family members are only informed after the execution, which is carried out by being shot to death with a handgun.
Hearing about Chiou’s judicial odyssey and the visit to the detention center reaffirmed my conviction that the death penalty is a cruel and barbaric punishment that violates every aspect of human dignity. I find it difficult to reconcile that a modern and vibrant democracy like Taiwan retains such an outdated and inhumane practice.
At the very least, Tsai should establish an immediate moratorium on all executions as a key step toward the complete abolition of capital punishment. Chiou and all other death row inmates in Taiwan should no longer live in fear of a looming execution.
When it comes to human rights, Taiwan has shown that it can be a pioneer. Earlier this year, Taiwan became the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. The nation now has an opportunity to demonstrate that it can be a regional human rights leader by abolishing capital punishment.
It is true that important changes often provoke feelings of insecurity among societies. Yet, Taiwanese have nothing to fear from the abolition of the death penalty. When then-French president Francois Mitterrand abolished the death penalty in 1981, public opinion was not in favor of the move. Today in France, no one is in favor of reintroducing the death penalty, apart from followers of the far-right.
Generally, in countries that have abolished the death penalty, public opinion has never demanded a reintroduction of capital punishment, because citizens realize that its abolition changes nothing in their daily lives. Without the death penalty, Taiwan will only be a more just and rights-respecting country.
I sincerely hope that holding the FIDH congress in Taiwan has created the momentum needed to create a society that is more respectful of human dignity.
It is all about dignity. How can you teach that killing is wrong by killing?
Dimitris Christopoulos is the president of the International Federation for Human Rights.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS