The controversial Act for the Control and Punishment of Banditry (懲治盜匪條例), also commonly referred to as the Bandit Law, officially became part of history yesterday. Although this belated move toward justice comes 58 years after its passage in 1944, when the then-KMT government needed a stiff criminal law to rule a war-torn China -- and after so many lives have been lost [more than 300 individuals were executed under the law over recent years], it still marks a major human rights milestone in the nation's history.
The most controversial aspect of the Bandit Law was its mandatory death sentence. Under the law, anyone who kidnaps another person with an intent to extort ransom and then intentionally kills his or her victim faces only one fate -- the death sentence. The sentencing judge was given virtually no discretion to impose a more appropriate punishment. The only means the sentencing judge had -- in some exceptional cases -- was to invoke Article 59 of the Criminal Code under which, "a punishment may be reduced at the judge's discretion due to extenuating circumstances."
As a result, the Bandit Law has long been the subject of criticism and protest from international human rights organizations, tarnishing the country's image in terms of human rights protection.
The new law now gives the sentencing judge the choice of imposing either a death sentence or a life sentence for the same crime. Another praiseworthy provision is a mandatory sentence reduction for kidnappers who release their victims, irrespective of whether the former have already picked up the ransom. This provision essentially prolongs the time during which kidnappers would be rewarded by releasing the victims, so as to reduce the chance of the victims getting killed.
The abolishment of the Bandit Act also ends the debate over its legal status. Many have long argued that the Bandit Act had lapsed only one year after its initial passage. The Bandit Act, as originally passed in 1944, contained a sunset clause, stipulating that the law was to be in force for only one year unless it was thereafter renewed by decree every year. Unfortunately, with its hands tied by external invasions and internal unrest, the KMT government failed to renew the Bandit Act until 18 days after the one-year anniversary of its initial enactment. Many have argued that, technically speaking, this meant that the Bandit Law had lapsed, despite the fact that thereafter it was renewed by decree in a timely fashion every year until the legislature finally removed the sunset clause in 1957.
The fact that people were being executed under a law that may have been long out of force raised as many human rights issues as the law's mandatory death sentence.
The abolishment of the Bandit Act also moves Taiwan one step closer to the abolishment of the death sentence, as promised by Minister of Justice Chen Ding-nan (陳定南). Chen openly stated that he planned to abolish the death sentence by the end of his term in 2004. From the way things look, Chen has a good chance of making good on his promise.
Finally, the abolishment of the Bandit Act during Chen Shui-bian's (
The Bandit Law was intended as a temporary measure tailored to suit the needs of a nearly lawless society during war time. It belonged to another time, another place and another era. It should have been rejected as such decades ago.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS