Judicial complaint update
Last month I wrote about how a flawed judicial process forced me into exile from Taiwan (“Legal nightmare in Taiwan,” May 7, p8). Today, I write with a more troubling update: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs refuses to acknowledge its responsibility, in a glaring contradiction.
Last month, the Taichung District Prosecutors’ Office issued a formal letter stating that I had acted without malicious intent and caused no damage. Yet I remain under a criminal sentence — six months in prison — for the something the prosecution has officially declared non-criminal.
The judiciary said “case closed.” The prosecution has affirmed there was no crime. Yet my exile continues.
When I appealed to the Bureau of Consular Affairs, hoping that the ministry would recognize this is no longer a legal dispute, but a human rights and foreign affairs issue, I was told simply that “the judiciary is independent” and that the decision is final.
No acknowledgment of the contradiction. No steps toward remedy. No indication of concern that a Canadian permanent resident of Taiwan lost his livelihood, residency, healthcare and rights due to a debunked ruling.
This contravenes articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When a person is punished without cause and remedy, it is arbitrary punishment.
If a Taiwanese were exiled from Canada based on a court ruling later contradicted by the government, there would be media outrage, diplomatic protests and calls for redress.
When the judiciary and prosecution issue irreconcilable findings and the ministry chooses silence over action, the damage extends far beyond one person — it undermines public trust in institutions.
A democracy that cannot self-correct places its credibility at risk. If this is how a long-term resident is treated, how can others trust in the fairness or resilience of the system? Who would invest in or immigrate to a country where one can be arbitrarily punished and left without recourse?
I ask again — now with even greater urgency — for the government to resolve this contradiction, restore what was lost and prove that its commitments to human rights are not just symbolic.
My case is an unfortunate, preventable disgrace. I do not write to harm Taiwan, but to ask a simple question: What would you do if it happened to you?
Ross Cline
New Brunswick, Canada
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS