On July 7, a 42-year-old woman and her younger sister, both surnamed Chang (張), were murdered in broad daylight in New Taipei City’s Tucheng District (土城). The suspect — the older woman’s husband, surnamed Hsieh (謝) — was reportedly angry that Chang had applied for a restraining order against him.
The two had appeared in family court that morning, as Hsieh had recently breached the order’s conditions. After Chang and her sister left the courthouse, Hsieh followed them back to her residence, after which he reportedly rammed his car into their scooter and allegedly stabbed the pair to death.
On Wednesday last week — less than one month later — a 27-year-old woman surnamed Ku (谷) was murdered in a parking lot in Taipei’s Xinyi District (信義). Ku’s ex-boyfriend, surnamed Liu (劉), had allegedly waited for her to arrive home. He has been accused of dragging her into the stairwell and stabbing her before fleeing the scene.
Ku had applied for a restraining order against Liu in May, citing acts of domestic violence he had committed, including choking her, and stalking her home and workplace. The day before her death, Ku wrote on social media that the order had just been approved.
These cases share striking similarities, but perhaps the most unfortunate is that both women had done everything in their legal power to protect themselves. That they were apparently murdered by the men they had sought legal protection against highlights critical failures in the nation’s protective mechanisms for victims of domestic violence.
Although the prompt issuance of protection orders is crucial in decreasing the likelihood of repeated abuse, data from the Judicial Yuan indicate that courts took an average of 42.63 days to issue an official document last year. This lack of institutional urgency was apparent in Ku’s case, as her restraining order against Liu took about two months to be issued.
However, made clear by both cases is that protective orders do not guarantee victims’ safety. Amendments to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (家庭暴力防治法) in 2023 — allowing for preventive detention or court-ordered arrest if a perpetrator contravenes the conditions of a protective order — aimed to address this, but such measures are only effective when properly implemented. Prosecutors detained Hsieh for just one day after he broke the conditions of Chang’s order, and allegedly murdered her the day after his release.
These tragedies are symptoms of a grim reality — despite the legal mechanisms in place, women in Taiwan remain disproportionately subject to abuse by their intimate partners.
Reported incidents of domestic violence in Taiwan total more than 120,000 annually — a number that rises each year. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Taiwan Health and Welfare Report last year, most cases in 2023 were categorized as intimate partner violence (IPV), with more than 75 percent of victims being women. The ministry’s 2021 survey on IPV found that nearly 20 percent of all women aged 18 to 74 had been abused by an intimate partner.
Despite these figures, current laws are reactive rather than preventive and fail to reflect a nuanced understanding of gendered violence. The review of Taiwan’s fourth country report for the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in December 2022 raised concerns that, although women in Taiwan are disproportionately impacted by IPV, current measures are ineffective because they “do not address effectively the root causes of the problem and such violence is not viewed as a result of gender inequality.”
From the initial passage of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act in 1998 to the adoption of CEDAW in 2011, Taiwan has demonstrated a desire to address widespread violence against women. However, achieving a truly preventive model would demand legal reframing, improved implementation and a cultural reckoning with the gendered nature of domestic violence.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on Tuesday returned from her visit to the US, where she had met with several US senators and representatives, think tanks, and overseas Taiwanese and Chinese communities, espousing her vision of promoting cross-strait dialogue as a way to evade war. On Monday last week, she sat down with US academic Orville Schell and Asia Society Policy Institute distinguished fellow Daniel Russel. Russel is a seasoned diplomat who has served in positions related to East Asian and Indo-Pacific affairs. At the conclusion of the discussion, Russel employed his considerable diplomatic experience and knowledge
In the aftermath of China’s expulsion of the New York Times correspondent Vivian Wang (王月眉), Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian (林劍) has publicly and explicitly articulated Beijing’s core thinking on the Taiwan issue. Chinese authorities accused the newspaper of promoting what they called “Taiwan independence fallacies,” and said that its description of Taiwan as a country amounts to a challenge to the “one China” principle. The significance of the incident goes beyond the reporting dispute and has given the international community a window into the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attitude toward Taiwan. Lin, in a statement, said
Nearly three decades after the 1997 handover, Hong Kong has become a paradox: a place where financial dynamism coexists with political repression — a reality Taiwan cannot afford to ignore. Despite a sharp contraction of civic freedoms since 2020, Hong Kong remains a major global financial center. It has recently overtaken Switzerland as the world’s largest offshore wealth hub, supported by steady inflows of capital from China and across Asia. The territory continues to serve as a key intermediary linking Chinese firms, multinational investors and global markets. Institutional continuity has played a role. The Hong Kong dollar’s peg to the
Japanese Minister of Defense Shinjiro Koizumi and Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro spoke at the Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in Singapore on May 31, presenting a vision of peace, stability and supply chain resilience in the South and East China seas. The vision was to be based on the cooperation of like-minded regional partners working within the parameters of international law and transparency of intent. That they had to specify these parameters was a pointed and explicit reference to the coercive and unilateral actions of China in the region. Like Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines have good reason
RSS