Grief grips the hearts of many in Taiwan and around the world as streams of horrific images and news continue to play back the devastation in Japan caused by Friday’s massive earthquake and the ensuing tsunami. As many in Taiwan show their concern and support by either making donations, tweeting or updating their Facebook status with good wishes and prayers, it’s dumbfounding to learn that a senior aide to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Huang Chao-shun (黃昭順) has instead taken to kicking the Japanese when they are down.
Chao Chih-hsun’s (趙志勳) series of posts on his Facebook page were hateful, cruel and insensitive to say the least. With comments such as: “I would even like to attack Tokyo and kill tens of millions of people,” “I don’t regard them [the Japanese] as human beings” and “I am laughing as I watch the TV [broadcasting the earthquake and tsunami in Japan,] it’s great,” blatant language of hate and racism comes into full view.
While Huang was quick to express regret and apologized afterward, saying she had stripped Chao of his title as her office director, she did not mention that she would keep him on as an assistant.
It is equally inconceivable how Huang and the KMT have both failed to react responsibly in the face of Chao’s remarks.
How does President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who doubles as the KMT chairman, expect the public to take his pledges trumpeting the signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights seriously when he sits idly by without uttering a word of condemnation against a hateful tirade?
People who come to Chao’s defense arguing that his freedom of expression needs to be respected should be reminded that Article 20, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR states: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”
Freedom of expression is an inalienable right, but not when it tramples on another person’s rights.
The KMT and Huang’s failure to act pales in comparison with the way Christian Dior and disability insurer Aflac Inc dealt with irresponsible, senseless behavior from their associates. Dior fired its creative director, British fashion designer John Galliano, for allegedly making anti-Semitic remarks, while Aflac terminated its relationship with comedian Gilbert Gottfried for making offending jokes about the tragedy in Japan on his Twitter account over the weekend.
The swift actions from Christian Dior and Aflac, including releases of stern statements, showed their zero tolerance for highly inappropriate remarks or behavior.
The stark comparison disheartens many in Taiwan, who wonder what sort of attitude the ruling party holds to allow individuals making hateful comments to get off the hook so easily.
It is little wonder then that Chao remains unapologetic in light of the controversy he has stirred, as suggested in his subsequent Facebook comments accusing the media of going after him with communist-style “literary persecutions.”
Granted, Taiwan currently does not have laws outlawing hate speech as some other countries do, but the very fact that Ma has signed into law the two covenants after legislative approval means the president and the government share equal responsibility in taking the lead in setting a good example.
As the saying goes: “Action speaks louder than words.” When words are not followed by concrete actions, it shows nothing but the hypocrisy of the preachers.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent