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
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS