The Ministry of Justice on Monday said that it might propose a law that targets hate crimes and hate speech, in response to a shooting targeting a Taiwanese congregation in California.
It is an odd move for the ministry to consider new legislation in response to a crime that occurred in another nation. It might be understandable if there had been concern about a rise in hate crimes within Taiwan’s borders, but hate crimes are unlikely in Taiwan.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a hate crime as “typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”
Roughly 98 percent of Taiwanese identify as “Han Chinese,” according to official statistics. While there has historically been violence between those already in Taiwan and new arrivals from China (so-called waishengren, 外省人), as well as historical conflicts between Han settlers and indigenous people, violence on such grounds is exceedingly rare today.
There is also no endemic problem of religious strife or systemic violence toward those of the LGBTQ community, and mass shootings do not occur in Taiwan, which has strict gun laws.
If the ministry is to propose new legislation to target hate crimes, it should define the crimes it is concerned about.
The suspect in the California church shooting has been linked to an organization connected with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and it is known that the CCP is working to create social strife within Taiwan, but its activities in Taiwan might already be addressed by existing laws. For example, the dissemination of fake news and the poaching of Taiwanese talent are addressed by laws such as the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例).
Taiwan already criminalizes defamation and it could introduce a hate speech law as an extension of that, to protect identifiable groups of people, but it is debatable whether such a law is needed.
One instance in which it might have been applicable was during the buildup to the 2020 presidential election when people were targeted for being supporters or critics of presidential candidate and former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜).
If people are harassed or attacked for their opinions about a political candidate, that could interfere with the democratic process and China could use that to cause rifts in Taiwanese society.
It is the CCP and its “united front” tactics that are the greatest concern for the government, and any discussion of legislative proposals stemming from the church shooting should focus on those efforts, rather than on hate crimes in general.
Following the shooting, some legislators urged the government to look into organizations operating in Taiwan that are suspected of having ties to the CCP. That would be a good place for the judiciary to start.
Some have also said that the High Court’s acquittal of the New Party’s Wang Ping-chung (王炳忠) on spying charges would embolden the CCP and its supporters in Taiwan.
There have been cases of attacks on people in Taiwan who expressed support for democracy in Hong Kong, or who were otherwise outspoken about the CCP. That such attacks can occur in Taiwan, and that some people could self-censor as a result, should be cause for grave concern.
The CCP continues to be a threat to democracy in Taiwan and if new legislation can somehow curb that threat, it would be prudent to propose such legislation. However, the government must determine the nature of the threat and whether existing laws are inadequate.
Whether hate crime laws are needed in Taiwan depends on how hate crime is defined, and whether that definition should be applied to Taiwanese society.
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS