Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have proposed caning as a punishment for online scammers. As many as 92 percent of respondents in a poll said fraud in Taiwan is severe, and more than 70 percent said they support following Singapore’s example by using caning as a deterrent.
The Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Yuan said that caning contravenes the personal freedoms outlined in the Constitution, and is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Promulgated in 653, the Tang Code with commentary defined five types of punishments — beating with a light bamboo cane, beating with a heavy stick, penal servitude, exile and execution — which were inherited by successive dynasties.
Following the example of European and US criminal law, the code viewed corporal punishment as a violation of human rights, and thus abolished the five traditional punishments. That laid the foundation for what would become Article 33 of the Criminal Code, which defines the five main punishments — the death penalty, life imprisonment, imprisonment of more than two months but less than 15 years, short-term imprisonment and fines.
In the early years of the Republic of China, insufficient judicial funding made it impossible to establish nationwide prisons, and the abolition of corporal punishment led to a rapid increase in offenders. Many believed that Western-style prisons treated inmates too leniently and failed as an effective deterrent. In 1914, then-president Yuan Shikai (袁世凱) reinstated caning and exile as punishments.
While the KMT’s proposal is well-intentioned, the Criminal Code outlines several serious crimes, and applying caning solely to online scammers would result in many gaps. In a populist atmosphere, the public might demand that caning be applied to crimes such as drunk driving, drug offenses, sexual assault, child abuse and child pornography. In that scenario, caning would inevitably become the sixth principal punishment under the Criminal Code.
If the focus is only on responding to individual offenses rather than solving the root of the problem, such a measure could cause more harm than good.
In 1935, a special chapter on “rehabilitative measures” was added to the Criminal Code. The judicial resolution justifying the addition stated that the Criminal Code would mandate educational compulsory labor to toughen prisoners’ bodies and minds, instill good life habits and equip them with skills to earn a living, thereby eliminating criminal thinking. Academics at the time widely regarded this to be the most valuable improvement to the Criminal Code.
Unexpectedly, the then-Council of Grand Justices (now known as the Constitutional Court) in 2021 issued Interpretation No. 812, which said that educational compulsory labor “infringes upon the due process of law and the principle of proportionality as outlined in Article 8 and Article 23 of the Constitution respectively” and abolished the system entirely. The reasoning was baffling, and legislators were given no opportunity to make corrections — it could likely be the reason behind today’s rampant expansion of fraud rings.
The opposition parties’ proposal to reintroduce caning undermines the overall structure of the Criminal Code. The Constitutional Court should take responsibility for this outcome.
The law should promptly be amended to reinstate educational compulsory labor as a rehabilitative measure. That would safeguard the nation and ensure public security.
Chao Hsuey-wen is an assistant professor and holds a doctorate in law from Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS