A domestic violence incident became a homicide in New Taipei City’s Tucheng District (土城) on Monday last week, when a 46-year-old man, surnamed Hsieh (謝), allegedly rammed his car into his 42-year-old wife and her 33-year-old younger sister, both surnamed Chang (張), before allegedly stabbing them to death.
The wife had already applied for a restraining order against her husband in May, and police apprehended him over the weekend for violating it. However, the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office granted Hsieh bail on Sunday, and with 24 hours of his release, the shocking tragedy unfolded.
Restraining orders are effective in deterring abuse in about 80 percent of domestic violence cases, experts said. Only a small number of offenders — typically those with criminal records, mental health issues or highly controlling tendencies — challenge such legal restrictions.
Experts urged people not to dismiss the importance of retraining orders due to last week’s isolated incident, as doing so might prevent more people from seeking help. That warning must be taken seriously.
As for the less common, high-risk cases, is the system adequately prepared?
People who defy the terms of their restraining orders are not unaware of the restrictions — they just do not fear the consequences.
When such incidents occur, are the existing mechanisms for judicial intervention and crisis prevention truly prepared to handle them?
Restraining orders are important protective tools that carry a legal and deterrent effect. They prohibit perpetrators from committing acts of violence or harassment, and might also require them to keep a certain distance away from the person who filed the request or vacate a shared residence.
For law-abiding people, restraining orders draw a clear legal red line. To those intent on committing violence, they do little to stop premeditated acts of revenge.
The prevention and handling of domestic violence cases cannot rely solely on restraining orders or the efforts of frontline personnel.
In last week’s case, the offender was arrested by police and sent to the prosecutors’ office — all according to standard procedure.
However, that Hsieh was released highlights a lack of sensitivity within the law enforcement system toward the severity of domestic violence cases.
While police and social workers do their utmost on the front lines, the judiciary must shoulder the responsibility of being the final line of defense.
When dealing with perpetrators who contravene restraining orders or have a history of violence, prosecutors should exercise heightened vigilance and consider precautionary measures such as detention, bail or supervision. Courts must also impose deterrent penalties. If the judiciary fails to respond quickly and effectively, victims are left exposed to the risk of further harm.
Ken is the pen name of a domestic violence social worker.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
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
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