Asia is home to 60 percent of the world’s population whilst being the site of 85 to 95 percent of the world’s executions. Of the 11 nations in Southeast Asia, all but the Philippines, East Timor and Cambodia continue to retain the death penalty. Even Japan, which one would consider to be the closest example of a wealthy liberal democracy, still has more than 100 inmates languishing on death row.
At the extreme of that spectrum lies China, which is the single largest contributor to the number of executions in Asia, if not the world.
This puts Taiwan on the cusp. On Tuesday next week, the Constitutional Court is set to review the constitutionality of the death penalty.
This is a welcome move, as it has been more than a decade since Taiwan signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights during the tenure of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
At the heart of the treaty is Article 6, which stipulates the right to life, serving as an important reminder that signatory states are obliged to work toward the abolition of the death penalty.
Taiwan has often touted itself as being a beacon not only of democracy, but also of human rights within the region. In addition, it has come to gain international renown through its oft quoted diplomatic tagline “Taiwan can help.”
This is where Taiwan could really live up to its ambitions of “helping out.”
It could stand out as a shining example to all its neighbors within the region and even the world that despite the geopolitical pressures it faces, its institutions — especially its courts — are free and strong enough to resist what some politicians have touted as being the public will when the issue of abolishing the death penalty is raised.
In the past few months, politicians have been quick to quote surveys which state that Taiwanese are overwhelmingly supportive of retaining capital punishment.
However, there has been very little attention paid to the 2021 survey published by UK-based Death Penalty Project, which showed that an overwhelming number of legislators interviewed were for the abolishment of the death penalty.
These legislators were unable to reveal their positions, as it would spell political suicide.
Another survey by the very same organization in 2019 revealed that Taiwanese were amenable to the abolition of the death penalty if presented with alternatives and that they were wary of the possibility of mistrials in capital cases.
The death penalty thus is kept alive in a feedback loop with misconceptions from the public as well as elected officials feeding into each other.
Therefore, the courts seem to be the only other available option to let this issue rest once and for all.
Countries in the region which have done away with the death penalty were for a very long time under the thumb of authoritarian governments. The death penalty in the Southeast Asian region cast a wide net, where not only murderers were executed, but dissidents and activists.
In that sense, the death penalty in Taiwan’s history, given its authoritarian past, was used not only to maintain social stability, but also as a weapon against those the regime deemed to be “bandits.”
It is time, given Taiwan’s democratic progress and its commitment to human rights, that it should be brave enough to let go of the past and walk into a future free of state-sanctioned killing.
Leong Kar Yen is an associate professor in the Department of Global Politics and Economics at Tamkang University. He does comparative research on the death penalty in Taiwan and Southeast Asia.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS