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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS