Whether or not Taiwan should abolish the death penalty is a subject that has recently been given a large focus by the media and by the people of Taiwan due to the recent execution of eight criminals in one day. Many letters appearing in the editorial section of your paper seem to condemn the actions recently taken by the Taiwanese government.
But what seems to always be forgotten in these matters are the people that fall victim to these heinous crimes committed by those that do not respect the basic rules of a modern society.
I am a Canadian citizen and Canada is a country where criminals seem to have as many rights as victims of crime. Murderers can get out of jail in 10 years if they behave properly in jail. Rapists are often given probation for first time offenses. Criminals who are obviously guilty can be released due to court technicalities. Is this a better system of justice?
To the criminal it sure is. But what about the victims? What about those in the family left behind by criminals who do not think about the consequences? Canada abolished the death sentence in the early 70s. Recently, as crime has been escalating, there have been more and more calls from the public to bring back the death penalty. Unfortunately, too many human rights groups come to the defense of these criminals.
Taiwan has done the right thing in enforcing the death penalty. If one is going to kill, one must be willing to face the ultimate penalty of being killed in return. This is a dog-eat-dog world and the criminals must be treated like the dogs that they are.
Christopher Casas
Hsinchu
Beyond pragmatism
Regarding an editorial that appeared in the Taipei Times on Oct. 18 ("Pragmatism over conviction," page 8), I would like to say this:
While I agree that Taiwan still has a long way to go in promoting human rights and striking an appropriate balance between individual rights and the good of society, this condemnation of Taiwanese people just goes too far.
I found the editorial to be disappointing and offensive.
From the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses case, the editorial makes the broad generalization that the Taiwanese people always put pragmatism before principle and says things like "Nothing is ever believed in so strongly that it is worth getting into serious strife for."
Aside from the grammar, I find this statement to be problematic because it ignores Taiwan's remarkable transition to democracy in the past decade. If the Taiwanese were purely pragmatic they would know that a Singaporean-style authoritarianism is much more efficient than a rowdy, fists-flying-in-the-Legislative-Yuan democracy.
Yes, DPP lawmaker Shih Ming-teh played a role in this process, but Taiwan's democracy was ultimately not the victory of one man, but of all the individuals who made sacrifices big and small, and of the whole of Taiwan's society that supported it in the end.
The editorial cites the fact that Taiwan has not descended into the ethnic violence of Northern Ireland or Kosovo as evidence that in Taiwan "ideas are not something that, in the long run, matter enough."
Not only does this simplistic comparison ignore the particular historical and political contexts which led these societies toward violence, but -- and really, need I say this? -- refraining from committing terrorism, genocide and mass rape should be viewed as a welcome and positive development.
Phyllis Hwang
New York
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS