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
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS