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
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
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS