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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS