Taiwanese democracy advocate Lee Ming-che (李明哲), imprisoned by Chinese authorities on false charges, was finally released and returned to Taiwan last month. A human rights advocate, Lee was charged with “subversion of state power” and sentenced to five years behind bars.
There is also the case of Morrison Lee (李孟居), a political consultant to Pingtung County’s Fangliao Township (枋寮), who was accused of espionage by the Chinese authorities, sentenced to 22 months in prison and deprived of his “political rights” (prevented from leaving China) for a further two years.
To date, Morrison Lee has been detained in China for nearly three years and there are no signs that the Chinese Communist Party intends to release him any time soon.
Contrast this treatment with that of the New Party’s Wang Ping-chung (王炳忠) and other party members who allegedly received funding from China’s Taiwan Affairs Office to set up organizations in Taiwan.
Although the alleged spy ring was suspected of collecting information relating to serving and retired members of the military and civil servants, as they had not yet recruited anyone, prosecutors had insufficient evidence to prove that the actions of Wang and the others constituted a clear and present threat to national security. For this reason, the group was acquitted at both the initial trial and a subsequent appeal.
The difference between Taiwan’s and China’s judicial systems is like night and day.
As a liberal democracy, the common phrase “no bending of the law and no indulgence of criminality (勿枉勿縱)” perfectly encapsulates the spirit of Taiwan’s judicial system. However, with an enemy on the other side of the Taiwan Strait that could launch an invasion at any moment, Taiwan’s judiciary often appears utterly ignorant of the threat facing the nation.
Local media have reported that many members of Taiwan’s legal system believe that the verdicts of judges are a means by which to “encourage” just verdicts from their opposite numbers in China. This means going soft on Chinese agents who infiltrate Taiwanese society under the guise of friendship.
The problem with this overly lenient attitude is that as soon as a clear and present danger does present itself, it would be too late to do anything about it.
Late democracy pioneer Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) once wrote that interaction with China must be based upon the principle of equality and reciprocity: Whatever China is allowed to do in Taiwan, Taiwan should also be able to do in China.
Conversely, whatever Taiwan cannot do in China, China should not be allowed to do in Taiwan, Peng said.
This is an absolutely fundamental principle.
Looked at another way: Do the verdicts of Taiwan’s judges place too little value on upholding Taiwan’s democracy and its freedoms? And has the government been forceful enough in its condemnation of China’s unjust incarceration of Taiwanese?
Upholding the values of Taiwan’s liberal democracy requires the rigorous application of the law. When a Taiwanese court hears a case involving a pro-China individual or group stirring up trouble in society, it almost always ends in a light sentence or an acquittal. Each time a lenient verdict is handed down in such cases, this causes unease among the public.
Upholding freedom and democracy is the responsibility of everyone. In carrying out their work, judges must take care not to throw away our hard-won liberties by allowing others to abuse the very rights that are meant to protect us.
Jane Ywe-hwan is an associate professor in the Department of Applied Japanese at National Pingtung University.
Translated by Edward Jones
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95