Legal nightmare in Taiwan
For more than 15 years, I have called Taiwan my home. I worked as an English educator, building a life, a business and meaningful relationships here. However, since 2020, I have been trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare at the hands of the judicial system — a nightmare that continues even after prosecutors have acknowledged that I did no wrong.
In 2020, I faced three separate criminal charges for briefly sharing a rental contract online. Despite presenting five defense witnesses and extensive video evidence — some of which was broadcast on national television — the courts ignored all exculpatory material. I was denied adequate legal representation and access to an interpreter, in clear contravention of basic rights and international norms.
After years of relentless court summones, emotional strain and financial ruin, I was forced to leave Taiwan late last year under threat of a six-month prison sentence and permanent criminal record.
The shock came just weeks ago. In April, the Ministry of Justice issued a statement confirming I had acted without malicious intent and caused no harm, essentially acknowledging that the original charges were groundless. Yet they are still upholding the original six-month prison sentence or more than one year of community service.
This is no longer a private legal dispute — it has become a textbook human rights contravention. The government, fully aware of its own procedural failings, continues to impose punishment on a foreign national without legal or moral justification.
The contradictions here are too glaring to ignore. How can a government claim “no harm” and “no intent,” yet still insist on punishment? How can a justice system acknowledge its own missteps, yet offer no apology, compensation or remedy?
Beyond my personal story, this case raises urgent questions about Taiwan’s international reputation, particularly how it treats foreign residents caught in its legal system, and what protections exist for due process, fairness and accountability.
What message does this send to the international community — especially to Taiwan’s allies and partners who expect it to uphold the values of a democratic society governed by the rule of law?
I have reached out to Canadian diplomatic authorities, human rights organizations and international media, but I believe people in Taiwan deserve to know about this injustice first.
I respectfully call on Taiwan’s judicial authorities to publicly acknowledge the harm caused by more than four years of wrongful legal pursuit, and to offer fair compensation for the financial, reputational and psychological damage incurred. I would also like to receive an official apology so I can begin the process of rebuilding my life and business.
This is not about revenge, but a call for resolution, accountability and the hope that no one — Taiwanese or foreign — will have to endure such a senseless ordeal again.
I share my story not only for myself, but in the belief that Taiwan can and should do better.
Ross Cline
New Brunswick, Canada
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS