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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then