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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS