In 2014, the administration of then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was rocked by the Sunflower movement protests and the growing wave of anti-nuclear demonstrations. Amid that turmoil, the night that the news was to run footage of the anti-nuclear demonstration, five people’s lives were used to regain control of the media narrative.
Teng Kuo-liang (鄧國樑) in Taipei, Liu Yen-kuo (劉炎國) in Taichung, the brothers Tu Ming-lang (杜明郎) and Tu Ming-hsiung (杜明雄) in Tainan, and Tai Wen-cheng (戴文慶) in Hualian all became pawns in a broader political strategy. Ma’s efforts were successful, as the demonstrations were overshadowed by the deaths of those five individuals that April.
In 2020, amid the rise of COVID-19, Taiwan launched a diplomatic initiative under the hashtags #TaiwanCanHelp and #TaiwanIsHelping. The campaign aimed to bolster Taiwan’s international image, yet it faced widespread dissatisfaction among the public. On April 1, 2020, while Taiwan was distributing 10 million medical masks to the EU, the Ministry of Justice executed Weng Jen-hsien (翁仁賢). It was timed deliberately on the same day as Taiwan’s humanitarian gesture, serving a clear political purpose: to divert attention away from the country’s internal challenges.
In a politically turbulent period, the government sought to shift focus, ensuring that the public was preoccupied with an execution rather than with more pressing matters. Meanwhile, the EU’s initial gratitude quickly turned to mortification, as Taiwan’s actions revealed the troubling reality behind its image.
After a five-year unofficial moratorium on the death penalty, Taiwan this month executed death row inmate Huang Lin-kai (黃麟凱), despite his case awaiting to be reopened by the prosecutor general. Huang had anticipated that his sentence would be reconsidered under extraordinary appeal, yet on Jan. 16, he was taken from his cell and executed before that process could unfold.
Why would the Ministry of Justice bypass a pending judicial decision? If Taiwan’s executions were truly about justice, the government would have ensured that due process was followed. In Huang’s case, the country’s political paralysis, caused by legislative gridlock, played a role. President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration appeared desperate to show that Taiwan’s rule of law was intact, even if that meant undermining the judicial processes that are supposed to protect the rights of its citizens.
The symbolism of Huang’s execution highlights the deep irony at the heart of today’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Its founding principles have long been rooted in democratic expansion and the promotion of human rights. Abolishing the death penalty is a crucial international norm that many organizations and countries continue to urge Taiwan to adopt. Such a move would further cement Taiwan’s place as a beacon of democratic values in the region.
In a moment when Taiwan’s democracy is under significant pressure, particularly from the policies being pushed through by the Legislative Yuan, it is reckless for the DPP to shift focus by using executions of those awaiting retrial as a political distraction.
We must remain vigilant in safeguarding Taiwan’s democracy. Every execution undermines that effort. Each one chips away at the integrity of Taiwan’s judicial process and weakens the country’s commitment to the rule of law. Now more than ever, policymakers must adhere to the constitutional process. By disregarding the Constitutional Court’s judgements, we not only erode Taiwan’s democratic structure, but also open the door for external pressures — particularly from China — to exploit Taiwan’s vulnerabilities.
Maria Wilkinson is a law student at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law. She has researched and written extensively on Taiwan’s death penalty practices since 2022.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS