Human Rights Day on Dec. 10 has special meaning for Taiwan. The Kaohsiung Incident that took place on this day 25 years ago was an important watershed for the tangwai [outside the party] movement. The defense lawyers in that case are today's political leaders.
Due to the close relationship between Taiwan's political and democratic development and Human Rights Day, the latter has always been given a high political profile, as if political rights equal human rights. Articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are related to a person's basic rights to life and political participation, are for the most part protected in Taiwan -- at least in name. Of course, some people may argue that Article 15, which states that "everyone has the right to a nationality," is ambiguous for the people of Taiwan.
But more importantly, as technology continues to advance, such progress may easily violate our rights -- such as those stipulated in Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence," or Article 19, which protects a person's freedom "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
If those in power do not firmly uphold human rights, it is far too easy for them to interfere with the public's rights using technology. But they may also do so due to technological ignorance. Conflicts over proposed identification cards with electronic chips and a proposed database of the public's fingerprints underline this problem.
Perhaps Taiwan is weakest in the latter section of the declaration -- the protection of a person's economic, social, and cultural rights -- mainly stipulated in Articles 22 to 29. Although they are also basic universal human rights, they are more likely to be affected by changes in social and economic conditions than political rights. For example, Article 23 states that "everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration." But this is actually decided by different social conditions. People's rights to leisure, education, medical care and cultural life also vary in different societies.
In the lead-up to this memorable day, we saw merely activities on "cultural citizenship" held by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA). Other government agencies only care about political rights -- such as the right to participate in legislative elections -- and seldom hold activities to boost people's social, economic and cultural rights. We are witnessing new challenges to people's rights in Taiwan.
Other bad news was cause for uneasiness, such as poor students being unable to afford lunch, increased numbers of low-income households, poverty brought on by globalization and the violation of foreign spouses' working and cultural rights, and even the right to ethnic equality. We need new policies in the face of these human rights problems brought on by social changes.
Recently, Minister of the Interior Su Jia-chyuan (
What is more regretful is that President Chen Shui-bian (
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS