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
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS