Today’s opinion page focuses on the death penalty, in light of the Jan. 16 execution of Huang Lin-kai (黃麟凱). The death penalty debate is complex, but the circumstances surrounding Huang’s execution and the frustration, anger and suspicion evident in the articles by human rights advocates published today are not so much about the core moral implications of state violence, they are more concerned with how a death row inmate whose remedial options were apparently not exhausted could be executed, only four months after Constitutional Judgement No. 8 was announced following six months’ deliberation.
The situation raises questions over whose interpretation on the state’s constitutional right to execute a person should take precedence and what procedures should be followed before the most final of sanctions can legitimately be applied; it raises suspicions surrounding politicians leveraging the shock of executions to distract from inconvenient political situations and to appeal to populist impulses; and it involves the part public opinion should play in what is either a moral or legal argument within the context of a democracy.
Muddying the waters of whether politicians should have a say in the debate tempts them to hide behind lofty arguments of morality (human rights), justice and the efficacy of legal instruments (the rule of law) and the public will (democracy) to further their own agendas. The discomforting truth behind the oft-quoted statistic that more than 80 percent of Taiwanese oppose the abolition of the death penalty is that the moral weight of that figure should presuppose the public’s thorough grasp of the complexities of the situation. However, much of the debate is informed by agenda-driven politicians or click-bait hungry media.
On Sept. 19 last year, in anticipation of the Constitutional Court’s announcement of Judgement No. 8, Chu Yun-peng (朱雲鵬) of the Chinese Association for Human Rights and Taiwan Deliberative Democracy Association reported the findings of his group’s public opinion survey, saying that 81 percent of respondents agreed that the legality of the death penalty should be decided by a referendum or the Legislative Yuan. He added that the figure decreased to 72.6 percent, which he called a “slight decline,” after the respondents had participated in a discussion on the issue.
A public referendum is not the correct method to determine a constitutional, legal and moral issue such as this. It might be an option in an ideal world with perfect transmission of information and objective explanation of the arguments, but that is not the world we live in. Neither is the legislature a reliable forum for reasoned, rational debate on an issue with as weighty implications as this: The legislative chaos that has occurred since February last year has reached particularly egregious levels, but it is neither unprecedented nor surprising.
Then there is Chu’s contention that 10 percentage points is a “slight decline” when respondents had the opportunity to explore the issue further. It is not. The public was also not privy to the length or balance of that discussion, nor how comprehensive, balanced and informed it was. If public opinion is the measure applied, and public opinion can be swayed, where is the moral certitude?
The articles on this page demonstrate suspicion of and frustration in politicians and their agendas, but also in the justices who delivered Judgement No. 8, which did not go far enough and was so easily disregarded. At the very least, Huang’s access to remedial measures should have been a test case to set the bar for the stringent measures of due process demanded by Judgement No. 8.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS