Every time a stalker turns violent, lawmakers and civic groups reiterate the need to urgently enact legislation to pre-emptively deal with such situations before the next tragedy befalls.
They called for it in 2017 when a student stabbed a classmate whom he had been stalking and harassing for five years. They called for it when a Malaysian student was murdered last year by a man who had a history of stalking women. They called for it last month on International Women’s Day, naming stalking as one of the “three great beasts” that need to be taken down through legislation, along with workplace harassment and revenge porn.
However, little has been done, as the bills are stuck in legal limbo.
Tragedy struck again last week, when a woman surnamed Tseng (曾) was allegedly abducted and killed by a man surnamed Huang (黃).
Tseng had filed multiple police reports earlier this year against Huang for alleged harassment and stalking, but police could not do much under the law.
She could not obtain a restraining order, as those are only allowed for current or former spouses, romantic partners or relatives, and the suspect was let off with a warning.
How much longer will the nation wait while similar incidents pile up?
Only the cases that turn violent make the headlines, but the National Police Agency said it receives about 8,000 stalking reports every year.
The bills that government agencies try to enact continue to disappoint proponents of anti-stalking legislation, and eventually get stuck in the Legislative Yuan due to the scope, definition and number of institutions the issue involves.
The 2018 version was panned for being too specific in defining stalking and giving police too much time to investigate complaints — the point is for the victims to obtain immediate protection so that things do not escalate.
Last year’s version was also heavily criticized. The government apparently fails to understand that the only thing that can help people targeted by stalking is immediate intervention. When perpetrators take more extreme actions that break the law, it is often too late.
Last week’s incident only proves that point — it took merely a few months for Huang’s actions to turn from stalking to alleged murder.
The Judicial Yuan last month expressed concern that it would not be able to handle a large number of restraining orders and hoped that the law would focus more on police intervention.
Meanwhile, police want to narrow the scope of the bill to stalkers who want to pursue a romantic or sexual relationship with their target, saying those are the most common and most likely to turn violent, while proponents want the bill to cover any type of “prolonged and sustained behavior designed to instill fear in a reasonable person.”
This is not the time for lawmakers to shirk their responsibility and further bog down the process.
If the law is powerful enough and can curb stalking, then the workload for police and courts should drop eventually.
It would take time, but that is the only way for real change to happen.
Otherwise, incidents would keep happening and public criticism would only grow, which is not good for either side.
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
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
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS