On Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) announced the establishment of the Presidential Office Human Rights Consultative Committee and said that according to two UN covenants signed last year — the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — all signatory nations are required to establish a human rights commission.
He also said that to ensure the two covenants were smoothly implemented, the government would set up the human rights consultative committee in the Presidential Office, instead of attaching it to the Cabinet, the Judicial Yuan or the Control Yuan.
Indeed, human rights, the rule of law and democracy are the three main pillars of a modern constitutional government, but it is both frustrating and ironic to hear Ma talk about establishing such a committee.
Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) proposed the idea of human rights legislation in his inaugural address on May 20, 2000. He also promoted the establishment of a national human rights commission and, on Oct 24, 2000, the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Commission was established.
Whether it was called the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Commission or by its later name, the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Committee, it achieved much in the promotion and protection of human rights, and worked toward the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrining the two UN covenants into law.
In 2001, Liberal International awarded Chen with its Prize for Freedom in recognition of his hard work in, and contributions to, human rights.
Unfortunately, when the legislature was reviewing the government’s budget for 2006 after Ma’s election as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman in August 2005, the KMT used its legislative majority to pass a resolution demanding that the Presidential Office dissolve the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Committee, saying there was no legal basis for such a committee.
Even though at that time the regulations in the Basic Code Governing Central Administrative Agencies (中央機關組織基準法) stated that agencies were allowed to set up new groups to meet their needs and that the staff for such groups should be made up of staff from the related agencies, the political situation was such that the legislature could force the closure and disbandment of the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Committee.
The Republic of China Office of the President Organization Act (中華民國總統府組織法) makes no mention of setting up a human rights consultative committee in the Presidential Office. Now that Ma is president and no longer just chairman of the KMT, he has become a champion for human rights.
When comparing this withhow Ma, as KMT chairman, oversaw the termination of the Presidential Human Rights Advisory Committee, one cannot help but wonder if human rights work merely involves talking and showing how different one political party is to another.
The way Ma says that what was wrong yesterday is the right thing to do today; and that what was wrong when it was done by the Democratic Progressive Party is right now because the KMT is doing it, has become the first obstacle to the new committee’s human rights work.
It also shows how inconsistent Ma has been through the years.
Cho Chun-ying is a former deputy director-general of the Presidential Office’s department of public affairs and an associate professor at Chang Jung Catholic University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS