Eliminating mistakes
On Aug. 13, 1997, Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) was executed by the government for a crime it appears was committed by Hsu Jung-chou (許榮洲). He was neither the first nor the last to be murdered by Taiwan’s judicial system.
Last year, the same judicial system put another four citizens to death. They were executed following the resignation of former minister of justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), who fell on her own sword in her unnecessarily public opposition to the death penalty.
Wang’s resignation seemed to galvanize public opinion in favor of capital punishment, as Pai Bing-bing (白冰冰) and Lu Chin-te (陸晉德) whipped up the pressure on Wang and used their children’s deaths to promote the very un--Confucian concept of revenge as the best form of grieving a lost one. The debate seemed over — a majority of Taiwanese, it seemed, wanted to keep the death penalty. Their thirst for revenge was greater than their concern that the wrong person might be executed.
Now that a tiny fraction of the total number of deadly “mistakes” made by the judiciary during the past 66 years are becoming public, many Taiwanese and some politicians are suddenly outraged. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) personally apologized for Chiang’s death and asked for Chiang’s family to receive compensation.
Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) quoted Ma as saying such a mistake could not be allowed to happen again, that the administration would push for reform and the Ministry of National Defense would determine who was responsible for this miscarriage of justice and — this is the key phrase — “deal with those responsible in accordance with the law.” Of course, this is the same system of laws that allowed the military to execute Chiang in the first place.
However, what Ma did not say was that capital punishment itself is intrinsically wrong and inhumane. He did not, and will not, say this because either he doesn’t believe it to be wrong (only executing the wrong person is a violation of human rights) or because he fears going against public opinion (or Pai), in which case he has no stomach or spine for the human rights he touts.
We should not forget that Chiang’s case happened only 15 years ago, yet the statute of limitations means that those responsible for his death are likely to go unpunished.
Democratization was not an even process — the judicial system and many of its laws and processes are still relics of the Martial Law era and the brutal Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) dictatorship that imposed it. We would all do well to not forget the past that shapes the present. Mistakes are still being made today.
It is about time that Taiwanese take off their blinders and discard their love for tit-for-tat justice. It is hypocrisy to demand the death penalty for murderers while being outraged over the killing of an innocent by the same method.
If we don’t want mistakes to happen, the only protection from the judicial murder of innocents is to ban the death penalty outright.
BEN GOREN
Taichung
ROC’s dwindling space
President Ma recently told foreign dignitaries that the international space for the Republic of China (ROC) has enlarged simultaneously with his policy toward China utilizing the principle of the (so-called) “1992 consensus” and “one China with each side having its own interpretation.” He cited examples such as visa-waiver privileges for Taiwanese visiting the EU and participation in the World Health Assembly (WHA).
The EU visa exemption has nothing to do with Ma’s policy toward China. It is a reward to the long-term credibility of Taiwanese visitors to the EU. Ma should thank Taiwanese, rather than priding himself on his irrelevant China policy.
It is possibly true that the WHA participation — as an observer subjected to annual review— is the outcome of Ma’s “one China” policy, but this policy rules out the possibility of Taiwan’s participation as a member of the WHA, the WHO, and the UN.
This explains why Ma does not want to apply for Taiwan’s membership in these world organizations for fear of conflicting with his “one China” policy. Ma now entrusts China to speak for Taiwan in the international arena. A good example of this is the fact that Taiwanese issues regarding the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) are now apparently handled by China.
The recent deportation of 14 Taiwanese by the Philippines to China and the cancellation of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s visit to Taiwan are other examples of China’s pressure on Taiwan. The international space for the ROC has shrunk; the name has also been downgraded to “Chinese Taipei.”
Even the domestic space for the ROC has dwindled as exemplified by hiding ROC flags from Chinese officials and sportspeople visiting Taiwan.
The ROC with respective description might become the ROC with deception.
CHARLES HONG
Columbus, Ohio
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