Amid the controversy surrounding Taiwanese fraud suspects’ deportation from Kenya to China and calls from lawmakers to protect their rights, Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) said that criminals should not be protected. She might not be the only one who thinks that way, as most in the judiciary seem to consider themselves akin to the fictional Song Dynasty’s Justice Bao (包青天), an attitude which is keeping the nation from becoming a mature democracy governed by the rule of law with genuine protection of human rights.
Chinese police forcibly taking dozens of Taiwanese fraud suspects — who were acquitted by Kenyan courts — to Beijing caused an uproar in Taiwan, with the public and lawmakers demanding that the government “save” the suspects and have them tried in Taiwan to protect their rights, as they do not trust China’s judicial system.
The government came under fire for not defending the rights of Taiwanese despite a cross-strait agreement to fight crime and have judicial exchanges.
Luo responded to the criticism by saying: “It is not good to lose focus with ideas of democracy and human rights.”
“Should we protect criminals?” Luo said. “Human rights do not include committing crimes or the right to hurt others.”
Luo’s comments came as a shock to many.
It is true that no one has the right to hurt others, but as a minister of justice in a democratic nation, she should understand that every person — suspects and criminals included — should also enjoy the protection of their basic human rights.
Suspects should have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to defend themselves, and they should be granted legal assistance in court and a fair trial.
Luo should understand that such ideas do not amount to “losing focus”; rather, they should be the focus of a democracy and a society that adheres to the principles of human rights.
The first step for Taiwan to become a nation governed by the rule of law and a protector of human rights would be getting rid of the influence of Justice Bao — a fictional character based on a Chinese official, Bao Zheng (包拯), who lived more than 1,000 years ago and is praised as righteous and fair, and even worshiped as a “god of justice” in temples.
In fiction and dramatic works, Justice Bao is described as an all-knowing judge who could tell whether a suspect is lying, and would force the suspect to admit to the charges through torture, and would behead the most malicious criminals in court immediately after handing down verdicts.
Justice Bao was an admired figure in ancient China, when government officials were extremely corrupt and doled out punishments only to the disadvantaged.
TV series, movies and novels about Bao have been popular in Taiwan, with politicians and even judicial institutions often using his image to promote judicial reform.
However, in a modern democracy, people certainly do not need Justice Bao.
The image of Justice Bao being deeply rooted in the minds of judicial personnel and the public is not good for the nation, and could be a serious obstacle on Taiwan’s path toward becoming a modern democratic nation governed by the rule of law.
It is time for Luo, as well as many judges and prosecutors, to stop playing Justice Bao and realize that anyone can end up in court, so protecting the basic rights of suspects is not protecting “criminals,” but protecting innocent people — they might have learned it in their first class in law school, but they might need to be reminded that everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS