On Feb. 17, the Transitional Justice Commission released its report on the murders of the mother and twin daughters of democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) on Feb. 28, 1980.
The most important finding is that the commission has not ruled out the authoritarian government’s involvement in the murders. Forty years after the killings, evidence has disappeared — either purposefully or unintentionally destroyed. Surprisingly, some documents remain classified, which only underscores the need to review current laws.
An amendment to Article 80 of the Criminal Code last year scrapped the statute of limitations for offenses that result in death. However, Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Act of the Criminal Code (中華民國刑法施行法) stipulates that if “the period of limitation of prosecution of punishment was in progress but not completed before [the amendment takes effect], the post-amended provision shall apply.”
In other words, the amendment applies to cases that have not yet passed the period of limitation, but not cases that have already done so.
In the Lin family murder case, the period of limitation — 30 years — has passed. Even if the murderer is found and is still alive, they cannot be held criminally liable, because the period of limitation has passed.
Due to the impossibility of pursuing criminal liability, transitional justice must now restore the truth as far as possible for later generations to learn from.
However, laws and regulations protecting classified information further aggravate the situation.
Since August 2018, the commission has asked the National Security Bureau for files on 21 cases, including the Lin family murders, the 1979 Kaohsiung Incident and the 1981 death of Carnegie Mellon University associate professor Chen Wen-chen (陳文成).
The commission only gained access to the files on one case, the Lin family murders, and were denied access to the others because — in accordance with Article 12 of the Classified National Security Information Protection Act (國家機密保護法) — “any national security information involving intelligence activities, sources or access shall remain classified permanently.”
If declassifying the files would expose the national security intelligence network, does that mean that Taiwan’s intelligence agencies have made no technical progress or advances in how they gather intelligence?
It is also impossible to imagine what kind of national security information could be listed as “permanently classified.”
The Legislative Yuan last year enacted the Political Archives Act (政治檔案條例) specifically to clear obstacles created by the Classified National Security Information Protection Act.
Article 5 of the new law stipulates that “archives that have been classified for more than 30 years without any legal basis shall be declassified.”
This helps prevent illegal conduct from being covered up by classifying it.
Bewilderingly, the act also gives an exception for political archives when “there is a likelihood that their disclosure would seriously affect national security or foreign relations,” allowing them to remain classified for 50 years.
This vague and ambiguous wording means that key evidence in the Lin family murders is sealed up for another 10 years. Exceptions of this kind are not much different from the permanent classification stipulated in the Classified National Security Information Protection Act.
These exceptions expose the absurdity of the regulations protecting classified information, and legislators should hurry to re-evaluate and abolish them.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate law professor at Aletheia University.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did