In Taipei, a pit bull raised by a man surnamed Hsu (徐) leaped out of a truck window and bit motorcyclists stopped at red lights twice in just 11 days. It is time to amend the law to increase the minimum penalties for dog attacks, to prevent irresponsible owners from continuing to let that kind of tragedy happen.
Article 20 of the Animal Protection Act (動物保護法) states that the “competent authority shall specify and declare the breed names of aggressive pets and relevant precaution to be taken.” The section titled “points to note for aggressive pets showing up in public places” says that dangerous dogs such as pit bulls should be placed in metal cages, or on chains or leashes no longer than 1.5m when entering and exiting public places, and they should also be muzzled.
Article 7 of the same law says: “An owner shall prevent his animal from infringing on the life, body, freedom, or property of others without due cause.”
However, what are an owner’s legal responsibilities if the dog bites a person? Contravention of Article 7 of the act only results in the seizure of the pet by the competent authority, while those who contravene Article 20 are only fined NT$30,000 to NT$150,000 (US$906 to US$4,532).
Moreover, according to Article 284 of the Criminal Code: “A person who negligently causes injury to another shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of not more than NT$100,000; if serious physical injury results, he shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of not more than NT$300,000.”
Article 276 of the code says:, “A person who negligently causes the death of another shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of not more than NT$500,000.”
For the wealthy, such fines are insignificant. In Queensland, owners of dogs that attack another person causing serious injury or even death face three years in prison and a fine of A$108,000 (US$67,900). That is the kind of penalty that has a deterrent effect on owners.
We could learn from Australia’s example by lifting the minimum sentences and fines for dog attacks, such as at least two years of imprisonment or a fine of NT$600,000, so as to stop irresponsible owners from letting their dogs to hurt people freely.
It is not difficult to walk a dog on a leash. Hsu has said the pit bull is smart enough to open the window by itself. However smart it is, the dog would not be able to unleash itself.
Chi Chieh is the director of the New Party’s public opinion center.
Translated by Eddy Chang
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS