I was born in the US, and while I may be what most Taiwanese think of as a typical foreigner, criticisms of how the “American way of life” is based on excessive consumption and squandering the world’s resources have long resonated with me. This has led me to spend most of the past 35 years in Taiwan, where upon arrival I was immediately taken with people’s attitudes toward resources — attitudes that might be laughed at in my home country.
I first came to Taiwan in 1977, and saw how in many households’ family members would take turns to bathe in the same tub of water and then use it to water the flowers or mop the floor. When it came to using electric lights, people were careful to the point of stinginess. It was this energy-saving “Taiwanese way of life,” necessitated by the financial constraints of the time, that helped me fall in love with this place and its people.
Later, as the economy took off, Taiwan blindly strove to achieve just the kind of US lifestyle that I had rejected. The result is that today the average amount of carbon dioxide emissions per person in Taiwan is three times the global average, and Taiwan’s emissions keep growing faster than anywhere else.
The sad thing is that, when it comes to those US values that Taiwan should adopt, many people have not learned them thoroughly enough and people in leading positions who have studied abroad — mostly in the US — are often the first to betray those self-same values to which they pay lip service in public. In Western societies, including the US, people take great care to abide by and uphold the rule of law. Government departments, in particular, are careful not to be seen as undermining the rule of law.
It is a different matter in Taiwan. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) received a doctorate in juridical science from Harvard University, but when serving as mayor of Taipei City he trampled the rule of law by refusing to pay the city’s National Health Insurance contribution arrears, as demanded by the Cabinet. His refusal continued after court decisions, and even an interpretation of the Council of Grand Justices ruled against his administration.
In a classic “follow the leader” move, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) dismissed as “dark clouds” and “hocus pocus” a court decision ordering a halt to construction work on the Cising Farm (七星農場) extension of the Central Taiwan Science Park.
It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry at such comments. Wu’s Cabinet team then willfully twisted the court’s decision, claiming that it meant the science park’s management administration would have to suspend its construction work, but private corporations AU Optronics and Sunner Solar could keep on operating.
Next to jump into the fray was Environment Protection Administration Minister Stephen Shen (沈世宏). He went even further, saying in emotive outbursts that “the court will pay the price” and complaining of “judicial interference in environmental impact assessment matters.” Shen has also busied himself with obfuscation tactics, spending endless hours penning newspaper articles berating the courts for their decisions and otherwise distracting readers from the more substantive issues to be addressed.
Taiwan’s executive agencies ignore laws passed by the legislature and when the judiciary finds them to be in violation of the law, those agencies trample on the courts’ decisions. How can we allow the executive to treat the legislature and judiciary in this manner?
Through its actions, Taiwan’s government is gradually eroding and dismembering two fundamental values of Western societies — the separation of powers and the rule of law. We have been led to believe that these are core values for Taiwan, regardless of whether the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party is in power. Having been educated in law in the US, I am both amazed and baffled in equal measure by this trend.
Ma’s governing team includes several ministers who studied in the US. These “counterfeit foreign devils” may speak fluent English, but when you look below the surface, they seem more like students returning from China. To be fair, perhaps we should note that while the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law have been dominant in US thinking for over 200 years, these principles have only really been tested in Taiwan over the last 20 years or so.
However, what really baffles me is this: Where is the voice of Taiwan’s legal community in the face of such blatant abuse of process, to the extent of bringing on a constitutional crisis? What accounts for these people’s silence while the government proceeds to systematically trash the law?
Taiwan is a country where legal scholars and professors are given great reverence and stature. I say to them: The rule of law needs you and so does the country. Speak out!
Robin Winkler is chair of the Environmental Jurists Association and a former environmental impact assessment commissioner with the Environmental Protection Agency.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS