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.
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
There are no obvious connections between the 7-Eleven retail chain in Japan and the Philippines’ national security concerns in the South China Sea. Here is one, one that also takes in Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC), the government of Denmark and Taiwanese plastic surgeons on the way. Japan’s 7-Eleven on Friday last week posted on social media an image of uniforms worn by the chain store’s employees in various locations, including Taiwan, the US, Hawaii, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Cambodia and the Philippines. If this was intended to promote a sense of camaraderie within the 7-Eleven family, it backfired. Taiwan was tagged with the
RSS