On June 29, the Taiwan High Court reinstated the death sentence for the "Hsichih Trio," a decision that without a doubt will mean that this case, which has been called a decision by an uncivilized state by Amnesty International, will continue to torture all parties involved as well as those who care about judicial reform.
If we compare this to another ongoing case, the preservation of the Losheng Sanatorium, these two cases reveal a message: The credibility of the political system may be gradually collapsing due to the self-centered approach of some of the people in charge. Although everything appears to be legal, those in charge are incapable of responding to society's needs and may lose the public's trust in and expectations for the system.
One of the main purposes of establishing government organizations and a judicial system is to prevent social conflicts from escalating and to keep society stable.
The difference between democratic and authoritarian societies lies in how these laws and policies are created and implemented. According to theory, the more democratic a society is, the greater the chance for a rational system. But in reality, as the above two cases show, the political system in its wider sense, including the judiciary, cannot make up for the cracks and instead cause social division.
In mid-April, then-premier Su Tseng-chang (
Although several buildings inside the sanatorium will be kept under the new plan, some of the most important historical sites will not escape demolition, all sanatorium residents will have to be relocated for the six-year duration of the construction, and both the commission and the Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation have completely ignored warnings from some engineers regarding ground water and soft soil at the site.
The "Hsichih Trio" case displays a frighteningly similar logic. After the Supreme Court rebutted the Taiwan High Court's 2003 acquittal, the Taiwan High Court allowed forensic expert Henry Lee (李昌鈺) to testify, raising hopes that the court was finally willing to face the problem arising from the weak evidence gathered at the crime scene 16 years ago when in fact judges were trying to find a way to disprove the not guilty plea. The result was that despite rejecting the rape charge and not detaining the defendants, the court maintained the death sentence. The defense team's longstanding doubts regarding the credibility of the defendants' testimony and other so-called evidence were all rejected by the judges.
The executors of these systems have all acted in accordance with the law. So what went wrong? I think that their mistake was to follow the most conservative path available. They ignored social changes and are not aware of the fact that not everyone wants new MRT lines regardless of the cost, nor do they understand that some people do care about old and weak leprosy patients and historical assets.
Likewise, they don't understand that more and more people know that you cannot convict someone on their confession alone, or that people want a judiciary that assumes innocence and lets the evidence talk. They do not understand that Taiwan is no longer a society that would rather kill an innocent person than let a guilty person go free and that Taiwanese are beginning to have more advanced notions of human rights and the rule of law.
Those in charge of these two cases have it within their authority to take a progressive or a conservative approach without having to request any amendments to the law. In the Losheng battle between bulldozers and people, it is disappointing that technocrats from the Public Construction Commission and other agencies have chosen a solution that sacrifices people for bulldozers. In the Hsichih Trio's long pursuit of justice, the three Taiwan High Court judges chose to join the ranks of their dozen or so bureaucrat colleagues by handing down the same ruling. Maybe that choice was justifiable to them because there is violation of the law. The word "regret" that pops up in the occasional official press release can always be forgotten by joining their fellow bureaucrats in their clubs of mutual admiration and support.
However, the damage caused to society by the system is unforgettable. As the two cases continue to grow and the damage accumulates to a certain level, the legitimacy of the political system may start to crumple while politicians and civil servants continue to rest in comfort among other bureaucrats, waiting for their retirement pensions or annuities. Those who are less lucky can lie low and wait for the next opportunity. But don't forget that this is the last and final opportunity for the seniors at the sanatorium or the Hsichih Trio -- Su Chien-ho (蘇建和), Chuang Lin-hsun (莊林勳), and Liu Bing-lang (劉秉郎). For them, there is no next opportunity.
I sincerely hope that those in charge of administering our laws and systems will be able to heed the call of Taiwan's new social values forming outside their ivory towers.
Chiu Yu-bin is a researcher at NGO Employee Union.
Translated by Eddy Chang
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
Chinese social media influencer “Yaya in Taiwan” (亞亞在台灣), whose real name is Liu Zhenya (劉振亞), made statements advocating for “reunifying Taiwan [with China] through military force.” After verifying that Liu did indeed make such statements, the National Immigration Agency revoked her dependency-based residency permit. She must now either leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Operating your own page and becoming an influencer require a certain amount of support and user traffic. You must successfully gain approval for your views and attract an audience. Although Liu must leave the country, I cannot help but wonder how many more “Yayas” are still
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
RSS