On April 1, Minister of Justice Tsai Ching-hsiang (蔡清祥) out of the blue signed an order to carry out the execution of 53-year-old death row inmate Weng Jen-hsien (翁仁賢) — while the nation as a whole was grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a coordinated effort was tirelessly being made to save lives, the Taiwanese government, which Foreign Policy described in a headline as a “coronavirus success story,” was accused of ending a person’s life arbitrarily.
The EU soon expressed its strong condemnation to demand that Taiwan refrain from any future executions, and reinstate and maintain a de facto moratorium.
The Taipei Bar Association also censured the government for breaching due process in the case, given that Weng was entitled to protections under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the possibility of a presidential pardon, yet the minister admitted not consulting with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) first.
The death penalty in Taiwan has been seen as an effective tool for the government to redirect the focus onto the social dissatisfaction and outrage toward a death row inmate.
National Development Council statistics showed that 82 percent of Taiwanese believe that the death penalty would effectively deter crimes and protect social security, although countless academic studies and innocent cases have proved otherwise.
Almost 90 percent of respondents to one survey opposed abolition of the death penalty.
Therefore, through the death penalty, an unpopular president can appear to have shown a tough stance on crime and realized social justice, thereby enjoying an immediate boost in support in polls.
However, what is puzzling is that there was no need to do so, as Tsai owned the overwhelming support of the public, a record-breaking rating of almost 80 percent.
It is not a matter of whether the minister jumped the gun and failed to strictly comply with the demands of two international covenants, but ultimately rather a bigger concern that Taiwan’s road to end the death penalty is unseen.
There has been an endless cycle over the past decade: When a death row prisoner is executed, there is a week-long national conversation about the use of the death penalty — differing opinions and divisive positions between proponents and opponents — and finally any efforts made to educate the public about respect for human rights all return to square one.
The president should remember: If pushing for “a nation built on the basis of human rights” is the right path for Taiwan, she has a responsibility and moral obligation to break the cycle.
History has shown that a respected leader should take the lead by going in the right direction, instead of heeding public opinion and becoming a follower.
Huang Yu-zhe is a political science undergraduate at Soochow University and has been accepted to National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Law and Interdisciplinary Studies.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US