The recent spate of domestic violence has once again cast a harsh light on the limitations of protection orders. Last month alone, two shocking incidents shook Taiwan. In New Taipei City’s Tucheng District (土城), a man surnamed Hsieh (謝) allegedly killed his wife and sister-in-law — just a day after police questioned him for contravening a protection order. Days later, a nightclub hostess surnamed Ku (谷) was allegedly murdered by her ex-boyfriend, surnamed Liu (劉), barely 24 hours after receiving her own court-issued protection order.
These rare, but extreme incidents expose a grim truth: A protection order can “deter the gentleman, but not the villain.” While lawmakers and experts debate how to refine the system, victims cannot afford to wait for institutional reforms. They must be prepared to protect themselves here and now.
Mindset matters. A protection order is not a shield that works on its own — it is only one part of a safety strategy. Victims must maintain vigilance even after securing legal protection. They must avoid lowering their guard or confronting the abuser in ways that could provoke retaliation. To an unstable or violent perpetrator, a protection order might feel like a public humiliation, pushing them toward irrational and destructive acts.
The deterrent effect of a protection order must be paired with the awareness of personal safety in real life for comprehensive protection. Think of it like crossing the street: Traffic lights and crosswalks give pedestrians the legal right of way, but no sensible person steps into traffic without looking. Heightened self-protection awareness is not an admission that the system is broken — it is the most practical safeguard available.
Timing matters too. Certain moments carry higher risk: After filing for a protection order or criminal complaint; when the perpetrator is summoned for questioning; when court hearings on issuing protection orders are held; when the victim receives a court judgement, knowing the abuser is also receiving these documents; even during the litigation process, when the victim presents the litigation documents and the perpetrator is expected to receive them.
Legal filings are designed to advocate for one side, often portraying the other unfavorably. To a volatile abuser, such language can be taken as a personal attack, triggering violent responses.
Domestic violence is uniquely dangerous because perpetrators are often former partners — people with whom the victim once shared deep emotional ties. This makes the mix of resentment, humiliation and control more combustible. A protection order should be seen as the starting line in creating distance from an abusive partner, not the finish. Safety lies in pairing legal protection with constant vigilance, especially at critical flashpoints when tensions can erupt.
Lee Yen-feng is a lawyer.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS