In and of itself, the Cabinet's introduction of an anti-terrorism act is not necessarily an alarming development. After all, since the multiple terrorist attacks in the US on Sept. 11, 2001, most countries -- including liberal democracies -- have revised their systems of laws governing security activities. Reorganization and the streamlining of the many intelligence, law enforcement, military and judicial branches comprising the prevention of and response to terrorism is a logical reaction to the reality of terrorism.
What should make Taiwanese pause, however, is the nature of the proposed bill, which upon close scrutiny presents a fundamental threat to liberty and human rights.
The act's fundamental flaws are twofold: First, it fails to define terrorism or "acts of terror" and thus provides authorities with an open-ended means of targeting individuals and groups whose activities may be perceived as representing a threat to the nation. Without a legal definition of what constitutes terrorism -- an interpretation which can span the spectrum from "intent to commit an act of terrorism" to "sponsoring a terrorist organization" to the actual "commission of an act of terrorism" -- states will soon embark upon the very dangerous slippery slope of open interpretations and subsequent abuse. In many cases, a loose definition can mean the difference between a decision to investigate or not and investigations will be launched when they shouldn't, with dire repercussions for the individuals targeted.
The second flaw, which follows upon the first, is the minimal oversight that would be part of the new act. Absent an independent and proactive oversight body, law enforcement agencies and intelligence services will be at liberty to engage in activities in breach of civil liberties and privacy rights -- even more so when the definition of terrorism is nonexistent, as is the case here.
Without a system of checks and balances, agencies will exploit the permissibility that this offers them and not only target individuals who should not be investigated in the first place, but will also do so with an inappropriate level of intrusion -- from wiretaps to e-mail interception -- as has happened in the US and, sadly, in many other countries.
Like other countries, Taiwan may feel compelled to do its part, as Cabinet spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said, in the anti-terrorism project. Sept. 11, 2001, has led democratic countries, such as Canada and Britain, not only to radically change their anti-terrorism laws but to increase their intelligence activities (or even go to war) to prove that they are on the US side, even when doing so runs counter to their national security interests.
Whether Taiwan should become a participant in that international endeavor is debatable. But to implement a law whose provisions are reminiscent of the police state that preceded a democratic Taiwan and whose reach is not unlike that of the very system across the Strait, is against the very self-definition of Taiwan as a democracy and does not serve its interests.
Having experienced firsthand what post-Sept. 11, 2001, security intelligence is like and how damaging to democracies -- even mature ones, like Canada -- it can be, I cannot be forceful enough in urging the Taiwanese government that it ensure that a clear definition of what constitutes terrorism is provided and that a system of accountability proportionate to the new anti-terrorism measures be implemented.
The well-publicized Maher Arar case in Canada, who because of shoddy intelligence work and lack of oversight ended up in a Syrian jail, where he was tortured, along with numerous cases of abuse in the US, should serve as reminders of what can happen, even in democracies, when a cause is taken to an extreme and when states drink from the poisoned chalice in the name of alliances or security.
Even advanced democracies like Canada, whose accountability system is, at least nominally, far more robust than what is being proposed in the new bill, has fallen victim to this overreach.
Despite its many successes in democratization, Taiwan remains a young democracy that is slowly but surely falling on its feet. It therefore cannot assume that it can embark upon its own "war on terrorism," or not fall where more mature democracies fell, without ensuring that its newfound liberties are protected. It should learn from other countries and observe the instances where they overreached.
Examples abound.
Then Taipei should ask itself if such far-reaching measures are necessary, and if so, how it can ensure that they won't cause more harm than good.
Failure to do so can only result in the erosion of the nation's precious albeit fragile democratic values and comports the risk of making it resemble the country it doesn't want to be: China.
J. Michael Cole is a writer based in Taipei.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS