Switzerland and death penalty
With reference to your article saying that “advanced democracies such as the US, Japan and Switzerland have the death penalty,” (“Opinions differ on death penalty,” March 15, page 8) I would like to point out that capital punishment is forbidden in Switzerland (Federal Constitution, Art 10, Paragraph 1). It was abolished from the Federal Criminal Law in 1942, but remained a part of Military Criminal Law until 1992. It was explicitly banned in the revised Constitution of Jan. 1. Within the range of possibilities available to it Switzerland has promoted the abolishment of capital punishment worldwide through various channels. Switzerland also has ratified relevant international human rights conventions.
In this respect, it may be of interest to you that the recent Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Geneva (Feb. 24-26) was organized in partnership with the Swiss Confederation.
I hope that I have been able to provide you with some clarification on this particular case and remain at your disposal should you require any additional information.
Does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong?
One innocent person executed is one too many.
In the current debate about Taiwan’s death penalty, lawyer Lin Chyong-jia (林瓊嘉) argued (“What is death penalty’s purpose?” March 20, page 8) that it has a “positive side,” namely making the public feel safer and satisfying the victims’ families’ need for closure. However, in his very first paragraph, Lin himself makes it overwhelmingly clear that the death penalty’s negative aspects far outweigh these perceived advantages.
He describes how, as a judge, he once sentenced a defendant to death, only to learn years later that the man had in fact been innocent. “I could have spared his life,” Lin wrote.
This is exactly what can and will always happen when capital punishment is carried out.
It is impossible to rule out the killing of innocents. This is no “collateral damage.” It is a life wrongfully taken, a crime committed by the state that cannot be undone. Thus, while everything may be carried out in accordance with the law, the state in effect sometimes acts no better than the criminals it wants to punish. The slightest possibility of this happening has to be ruled out, in the name of both humanity and common sense. That is only possible by abandoning the death penalty.
In the current debate, many people complain that the victims’ families are not being listened to enough. I want to ask: Who thinks of the families of those falsely accused and killed? What consolation can Lin or other proponents of the death penalty offer those whose lives were destroyed by taking away their loved ones, accusing them of a crime they did not commit and shooting them dead? There is nothing that justifies their suffering.
It is completely irrelevant how often this happens relative to the execution of criminals who were indeed guilty. One life wrongfully taken is one too many. Lin himself gives evidence that it has happened in Taiwan before. Taiwanese have to stop this terrible injustice from ever happening again. In a country where for decades the death penalty was used to kill thousands under various pretexts, often for just speaking out for their rights or for criticizing the government, it is time to move ahead.
Anyone who thinks there is some justification for the death penalty should ask one simple question: Does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong?
Any positive news on China?
I have been reading the Taipei Times on a daily basis for about five years. I have been enjoying it, and I think the Taipei Times is so much better than its counterpart the China Post, but there is one thing that annoys me.
To my knowledge, the Taipei Times has not published a positive piece on China for many years.
The Taipei Times relies on news agencies like Reuters, AFP and AP for its supply of international news. Since I, also read US and European magazines and newspapers, I know that these news agencies occasionally write about positive developments in China.
Clearly editors at the Taipei Times are choosing to deliberately ignore good news from China, though bad news does invariably make it into the paper.
I believe in democracy and I believe in human rights. I believe that Taiwan should be a democracy forever.
But I also believe that in politics there is no black and white, no good side and evil side, and I believe that this kind of worldview is perhaps the most dangerous of all.
There must be some good news coming out of such a huge country as China, and if someone tells me that there’s not then I regard this person as not credible.
Squirrels not so cute
The front-page picture on Friday was pretty enough. It was a picture of children feeding squirrels. However, I wonder why the Taipei Times didn’t bother to mention how dangerous these types of activities can be.
The picture in question, (and front-page pictures quite often have nothing to do with any front-page story) entitled “Rodent Surprise” explained that squirrels have become tame all over the city.
In Canada, we are encouraged to prevent pet dogs from licking traces of squirrel urine in case the squirrels have rabies and/or other diseases. So, although they are very cute creatures, they still pose a great danger. Wild animals carry diseases and humans should interact with them at a distance. Children should not feed squirrels ... nobody should. They are animals, and they can forage.
Please remind readers of the hidden dangers behind cute pictures.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a good reason to avoid a split vote against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in next month’s presidential election. It has been here before and last time things did not go well. Taiwan had its second direct presidential election in 2000 and the nation’s first ever transition of political power, with the KMT in opposition for the first time. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was ushered in with less than 40 percent of the vote, only marginally ahead of James Soong (宋楚瑜), the candidate of the then-newly formed People First Party (PFP), who got almost 37
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) has called on his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) counterpart, William Lai (賴清德), to abandon his party’s Taiwanese independence platform. Hou’s remarks follow an article published in the Nov. 30 issue of Foreign Affairs by three US-China relations academics: Bonnie Glaser, Jessica Chen Weiss and Thomas Christensen. They suggested that the US emphasize opposition to any unilateral changes in the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait, and that if Lai wins the election, he should consider freezing the Taiwanese independence clause. The concept of de jure independence was first
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday reiterated that he is “deep-green at heart” and that he would mostly continue President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) national defense and foreign policies if elected. However, he was still seriously considering forming a “blue-white” electoral alliance with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) less than a month ago, telling students he “hates the KMT, but loathes the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) even more,” while constantly criticizing Tsai’s foreign policy these past few years. Many critics have said that Ko’s latest remarks were aimed at attracting green-leaning swing voters, as recent polls
Taiwan’s Ministry of Labor and India’s Ministry of External Affairs have confirmed that the two countries plan to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) this month on recruiting Indians to work in Taiwan. While this marks another step in deepening ties between the two nations, it has also stirred debate, as misunderstandings and disinformation about the plan abound. Taiwan is grappling with a shortage of workers due to a low birthrate and a society that is projected to turn super-aged by 2025. Official statistics show that Taiwan has a labor shortfall of at least 60,000 to 80,000, which is expected