As the world celebrates International Human Rights Day tomorrow, Taiwan will also be presented with an opportunity to reflect on its progress, or lack thereof, in safeguarding human rights over the past year.
Recent events are likely to cast a pall on Taiwan’s image. Just last week, Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Deputy Secretary-General Maa Shaw-chang (馬紹章) announced that the Taichung City Government would designate a 30,000-ping (nearly 100,000m²) “protest zone,” or “opinion plaza,” so that protesters could make their voices heard during the fourth round of negotiations between SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and his Chinese counterpart Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) later this month.
Although Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) put the brakes on what he called a “premature” idea, adding that it would be unconstitutional to deprive people of their right to assemble outside a designated area, Taiwan’s international image as a country that, unlike China, honors freedom of speech, was nevertheless tainted.
Several international media organizations have expressed interest in sending crews to cover the Taichung talks, not so much for the talks themselves, but rather over expectations that the “orderly protests” might get out of hand.
And it gets worse.
As the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper, the Liberty Times wrote yesterday, the Taichung City Police Bureau has reportedly attempted to “persuade” shops around the talks’ hotel venue to close during the meeting over concerns of possible riots in the area.
It is understandable that law enforcement officers would seek to maintain social order. But the assumption that protesters will be violent highlights a bias against dissent and reveals an authoritarian mindset that stigmatizes protesters regardless of their cause or behavior.
No wonder the failure to revise the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) continues to top the list of the public’s 10 main concerns about human rights this year, as a survey by the Taiwan Associations for Human Rights has shown.
Taiwan may have completed its transition from the “hard” authoritarianism left behind by dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to a “softer” authoritarian rule initiated by his son and successor Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) in the 1980s, but to this day, many people believe that an authoritarian reflex lingers among government and police officers, which has become the biggest hurdle to a legislative revision of the Act.
It is also inexcusable that the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), which has deeply immersed itself in cementing ties with China, has failed to take people’s rights to assemble with equal urgency.
Whether full engagement with China will bring economic benefits to the nation’s export-oriented economy remains to be seen. But in every contact with China, Taiwan can — and should — use the opportunity to fulfill its international obligations by playing a bigger role in encouraging Beijing to democratize and respect human rights.
By failing to do so and focusing solely on improving its economy — which seems to be the Ma administration’s favored approach — Taiwan will fail in its responsibilities as a stakeholder in the international community.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS