The question of whether Justin Lin (
Lin's application for a visa to attend his father's funeral amounts to perfectly normal behavior. I firmly believe that he did not want to bring up past issues and that the simpler his trip could have been, the better. Clearly he did not want to face the legal issues that he left behind in Taiwan. The crucial factor behind his decision not to return was probably the question of whether or not the government would pursue charges against him.
Lin joined the army of his own free will, but the enormity of the crime he committed when, as a front-line commander he defected to the enemy far exceeds that of the crimes of many gangsters. Yet, when gangsters escape abroad and then want to return to visit relatives or attend funerals, who asks for leniency on their behalf?
Lin has received special treatment because of his status as an important adviser on economic reform in China. There may be many legislators in Taiwan who, out of sympathy and humanitarian concerns, wish to find a way to help Lin avoid liability, but they ought to stop and think for a while. If they want to talk about humanitarianism, they should treat all alike without discrimination and not just seek to help those in important positions. Damage to the national interest resulting from crimes committed by people in high positions is a very serious form of damage.
If, however, it transpires that Lin cannot be prosecuted, the government should turn its attention to the question of how the handling of Lin's case might have affected the military.
Soldiers are willing to fight wars and offer their lives not because they are bribed or because of military laws, but because of loyalty to the nation. Military ethics are therefore very important and this is the point where Lin was found wanting. He may have escaped legal sanc-tions, but he cannot shirk the moral responsibilities of a soldier.
The government must be exceptionally careful in its handling of the Lin case in order not to give rise to the suspicion that it is ignoring the issues of military ethics involved in Lin's defection. Were it to allow such a suspicion to gain ground, it would set an extremely bad example for the army.
The effectiveness of the second-generation army which is currently being built will continue to depend on human beings. If the government helps defectors shirk responsibility by treating military ethics as a humanitarian issue, it will make Taiwan's soldiers won-der what they are fighting for.
Lin's transformation from company commander to the holder of a doctorate does not change the fact that he defected. The government should avoid mixing humanitarianism, law and ethics. On humanitarian grounds, it granted Lin permission to return to Taiwan. As far as the law is concerned, however, it is not for the government to help Lin to avoid responsibility. The question of whether the case can still be prosecuted should be decided by prosecutors.
Most importantly, morally speaking, the government should not have stayed on the sidelines, but should instead have taken a clear stand and strongly condemned Lin for escaping when facing the enemy, harming military security, being disloyal to the nation and failing to perform his duty as a soldier.
Kao Lang is a professor at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS