When the international community criticizes Taiwan’s human rights record, the government listens and occasionally even acts. This was the case under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and did not change with the transfer of power in May.
Considering the influence that foreign pressure has had in the past — leading, for example, to an end to the practice of shackling death row prisoners — we must be grateful for the attention Taiwan has received in past months from organizations like Freedom House, the International Federation of Journalists and the International Federation for Human Rights.
In this paper’s Sunday edition, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government again showed its sensitivity to overseas scrutiny in a written response to an article from Freedom House published last month. That article — composed after the authors visited Taiwan to conduct interviews with academics, DPP and KMT officials and civic groups — listed concerns ranging from a lack of transparency in cross-strait negotiations to bias in the judiciary and “trial by media.”
In his response, Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) attempted to dismiss those concerns — with little success.
Su offered an argument also used by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) in her January response to an open letter from overseas academics and Taiwan experts. What may seem to be bias on the part of prosecutors targeting pan-green politicians, Wang and Su said, could be explained by the fact that the DPP was in power the past eight years and had more opportunities for corruption. Wang even wrote that “the opposition party [KMT] enjoyed no such access” to positions that could be abused. This claim was risible, not least considering that the pan-blue camp has always dominated the legislature and local governments, controlling 18 of the nation’s 25 city and county governments since 2004.
Su also cited Ministry of Justice statistics from the past nine years to argue that there was no evidence of bias in the judiciary in the past nine months. The number of pan-green versus pan-blue officials and legislators investigated during those nine years was about the same, Su wrote. He argued that this, together with the mandate for prosecutors to act independently of government influence, proved that allegations of pressure from the current administration were “absolutely unjustifiable.”
His response to concerns about a skit put on by the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office was equally weak. “It should not be imagined that such a trivial skit could influence the judiciary’s thinking,” Su wrote. However, the crux of the issue was not that the skit may have engendered bias, but that it may have reflected it.
Su also brushed off Freedom House’s criticism of closed-door cross-strait talks and its call for the government to “take an inclusive and open posture toward the public” on any deals with China. He said that the information reported on the negotiations was adequate, adding that the deals signed in November were sent to the legislature. He neglected to mention, however, that the KMT caucus stalled their review, allowing the four deals to take effect automatically.
Su’s article was a rehash of ineffective arguments. The government may be disappointed to find that its response to Freedom House did little to allay concerns about the state of human rights and judicial independence in Taiwan.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS