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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS