Human Rights Group to be formed

Legal Human Rights
21

I would certainly agree that the Japanese colonial period aided Taiwan’s development quite a bit…but it did not do anything to create a rule of law. Taiwan has, to the best of my knowledge, never had a rule of law. I am quite familiar with the legal situation in Taiwan in the late Qing era and the martial law days…never a rule of law to be seen.

It is important to realize that the “rule of law” is a cultural matter, not a matter of making a law saying “oh, we are going to have a rule of law”. A true “rule of law” develops over centuries and becomes part of the cultural fabric. It is not something you just “snap” your fingers and get.

The folks at the Judicial Yuan seem to me confused on this point and it is somewhat ironic that they are talking all the time about the rule of law when in fact the Judicial Yuan is a vipers’ nest of personal politics. I actually laughed out loud the other day, I walked into the High Court building and saw a poster that was put up about a series of speeches the Judicial Yuan is sponsoring about the “new” rule of law. The title of the series, as it was translated into english was:

Rule of Law: People Cheer!!

I laughed so hard I almost had an accident in my shorts.

take care,
Brian

22

Who was giving the speeches? Judges? Were any of them older than 30?

23

Would anyone here define the 1979 “US Court of Berlin” as the rule of law? And what then of the judicial situation on Guantanomo Bay, Cuba?

There is much merit to the previous point on the British colonial judiciary in Hong Kong and Singapore.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/usvtiede.html

24

For any improvement in the human rights conditions of both the Taiwanese and non Taiwanese living on Taiwan, there must be a united and focused effort. The foreign community in Taiwan can play a very important part in the progression and recognition of human rights on Taiwan.

Few people get 100% of what they want. Human rights in Taiwan is a political issue and there are many who have a lot to lose by allowing human rights to improve. Progress will be slow but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Even if we get only 1% of what we aim for we have accomplished something. Giving support for any effort to improve human rights cost us very little compared to what we have to gain.

Change comes very slowly with the Chinese but it will come. Taiwan is a democracy, which means change is allowed but must first be sanctioned by the people’s representatives to government. Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hartzell and many others have been very effective. There has been some progress and there is room for much more. 20 years ago foreigners in Taiwan were followed by government agents. Their telephones were tapped and they were arrested and imprisoned for attempting to do what many are free to do on this forum right now.

25

I’ve gone through this posting and the one of foreigners serving on human rights committees, and picked off the names of five people who apparently involved in human rights:

Brian Kennedy
Richard Hartzell
Linda Gail Arrigo
Bo Teddards
Father Ryden

So maybe these five could be the basis of the human rights group Hartzell is trying to set up. But I still see two problems, and ones that unsolved would keep me from fully supporting it:

  1. Based on last names, it doesn’t seem like their would be many people representing the bulk of foreigners on Taiwan (Indonesians, Vietnamese, and other Southeast Asians);
  2. I still don’t see why these five couldn’t set something up jointly with either the Judicial Reform Foundation or the Taiwan Human Rights Association.
26

There are actually far more than the people you list. I want to make special mention of a number of Roman Catholic priests, sisters and lay workers who have over the years really done a lot of “street work” to protect human rights. I won’t name them by name because they tend to prefer keeping their names out of things. But they have done outstanding work on a wide range of cases.

One person I will name is Lynn Miles, who “way back in the day” before human rights work was “cool and chic” and…safe; did a lot to promote human rights in Taiwan. And I don’t mean sitting on committees, I mean “real” human rights work. Lynn should write an autobiography some day.

Another person I would name is Phelim Kyne who was the only journalists that I knew in my ten years in Taiwan who ever did any serious investigative journalism on human rights issues.

Another person who deserves mention is a local professor named Mab Huang who is a professor out at Soo Chow University. Prof. Huang has worked long and hard for human rights education in Taiwan.

Also too, there are a number of local attorneys who represent the finest type of human rights advocates. Attorneys such as Kenneth Chiu, Calvin Tsai, Attorney Su (who is representing the Su Chien ho defendants)

These are fine people and there are others. Sad to say however most of the folks who (now) claim to be big human rights advocates are in fact hyprocrites who just want something else to put on their name cards and are now involved in human rights “work” simply as another venue for personal politics and a way to “grab some money out of the pork barrel”.

And they represent the vast majority and serve to derail any serious attempts to move human rights forward in Taiwan.

How is that for a balanced posting; a little good, a little bad.

take care, (my boss, my wife, is yelling at me to get back to work and type for dollars!)

Brian

27

Boomer, you mentioned “united and focused effort”, umm, have you ever seen the Taiwanese do anything in a “united and focused” way? I have not. And therein lies (one of many) reasons why this place is destined to fade into backwater status.

take care,
Brian the Taiwan Optimist

28

brian,

you haven’t said much about the idea of setting up another human rights organization. what has your experience been dealing with the JRF?

29

I am kind of sorry to say that Taiwan needs another human rights group about like I need another hole in my head. I have not heard anyone say how this one would be any different than for example Chris Peck’s group is/was. Nor has the question been answered of which segment of “foreigners in Taiwan” the new group will focus on.

Nor has the Big question been answered of why would any Taiwanese government agency give more than ten seconds, a cup of tea and a big smile to this group. The only thing that I have seen Taiwanese government agencies “fear” is major international pressure or individuals who are “connected” (to use the mob term) somehow.

As for working with JRF, as Richard pointed out, that ain’t gonna happen. JRF has it own agenda and more relevantly to Taiwan, its own personal politics. I would strongly guess they have absolutely no desire to open up either their agenda nor their “power structure” to non-local, non-attorneys.

I don’t mean to dump cold water on anyone’s hopes but that is my analysis.

Another thing to note…this entire proposal has only generated discussion among only 4 people, it is not an idea that seems to be taking Taiwan’s foreign community “by storm”.

take care,
Brian

30

Brian,

What you’ve said here reflects my gut reaction to the idea, especially this part:

This is key. Before deciding how much of an initiation and annual fee to pay to any organization, which was how this thread started, I would like to know what the organization is going to do and who it will help.

31

Try this focal lense of Taiwan foreign interests???

usataiwan.org/

32

That is an old gag, the earlier version was the “51” Club, where Taiwan was going to become the 51st state. I have in my scrapbook an old 51 Club flyer. I save it for sentamental value.

And the 51 Club has even older “roots”. Right after WW2, some of the locals, who with very accurate foresight, thought that warlord cum President CashMyCheck was not going to be a “good thing” for Taiwan, sought to become an American “protectorate”.

Dr. B.K.
The Official Court Historian

33

A recent letter supporting US sovereignty:

taipeitimes.com/News/edit/ar … 2003063707

34

This is a very interesting letter. I have always considered it interesting that none of the Taiwan Independence Groups are able to answer the simple question: “Where is the sovereignty of Taiwan at the present time?”

Contrastingly, the entire assumption behind the “Referendum on Taiwan’s Future Direction” idea is that somehow Taiwan’s sovereignty has dried up, disappeared, or been lost. However, since sovereignty contains components of “population” and “defined territory”, and these have not disappeared in the 1945.10.25 to the present era, then there is no basis for saying that somehow Taiwan’s sovereignty has dried up, disappeared, or been lost!

35

I may or may not have ever mentioned this before but the whole issue of sovereignty is very, very easy. It is not:

  1. a legal issue nor
  2. a historical issue
  3. nor can you “make yourself” sovereign–except by war (more correctly “by winning a war”, if you try and fail–no “sovereignty prize”)

Sovereignty is where other recognized governments recognize you as being the legitimate government of the land which you claim. Sovereignty is kind of like beauty, a movie star who is “beautiful” is so because other people say she is. A crazy old street hag who walks down the street saying “I am a beautiful movie star” is pathetic.

I won’t draw any obvious analogies with Taiwan, but my point is clear.

take care and remember to convert your NT Funny Money into some stable currency.

Brian the Pro-Taiwan Booster

36

Good point Brian. I’m sure that even if those living in the Americas had “proven” that their land was sovereign, that it would have done little to have slowed their loss of it.

37

[quote=“brianlkennedy”]I may or may not have ever mentioned this before but the whole issue of sovereignty is very, very easy. It is not:

  1. a legal issue nor
  2. a historical issue
  3. nor can you “make yourself” sovereign – except by war (more correctly “by winning a war”, if you try and fail – no “sovereignty prize”)[/quote]

I think that this is the general impression among most people. However, based on my two years of research into the field of “international territorial cession law,” I also believe that this impression is not 100% accurate in the era since the end of the Napoleonic Wars – which marks the beginning of the era of the modern state.

There seems to be little dispute that the sovereignty of Taiwan was held by the Japanese after 1895. In the late 1940’s, and certainly in the early 1950’s, the status of Taiwan was frequently referred to as being undetermined. Well, what happened to the sovereignty of Taiwan? That is the question that none of the pro Taiwan Independence Groups can answer, and it is an extremely important question.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty did not award the sovereignty of “Formosa and the Pescadores” to the Republic of China. As a result of this, many people look at the UN Charter and say that the people of Taiwan have the right of self-determination. But the KMT government in the 1950’s didn’t agree to that principle, did it? If the principle of self-determination was valid, why wasn’t it instituted then? While it is true that President Chiang claimed he was the legal government of China, he actually wasn’t . . . . . . that could have been quickly pointed out, and the need for self-determination brought up strongly at that time.

In any event, everybody completely ignores how this entire discussion of Taiwan’s sovereignty dovetails with certain events which happened in 1972. Namely, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger made an agreement with the PRC for the normalization of relations, and as part of that agreement it was specified (in so many words) that there is only one China . . . . and that subject to the successful outcome of cross-strait negotiations, Taiwan would become part of the PRC.

That amounts to the specification of the conditions for a future transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the PRC, and in the intervening years, we have seen the US and the PRC move steadily toward that goal by “squeezing” Taiwan in every possible way . . . . . . .

Additionally, the USA is a democratic country, and yet it opposes a referendum on Taiwan independence . . . . . .

Don’t you see how all these facts fit together? Going back to the Shanghai Communique of 19721.02.28, there were three parties who were either dealing or being dealt with there. Taiwan, the USA, and the PRC. It was specified that Taiwan would become part of the PRC.

So, who holds the sovereignty of Taiwan now??? If you cannot put all these pieces together you should seriously research the subject of international territorial cession law as I have over the past two years.

My NT$ 2.

38

My position is based on my 45 years living in the real world.

Law does not mean anything unless it can be enforced. Even if these obscure legal theories were correct…so what. Taiwan ain’t got no friends…got no friends, got no sovereignty.

Although we disagree on this, I think highly of you Richard and I hope you get paid by the word…you will be a rich man soon if so.

I would gently mention one other thing, the locals are not strong on logic or reasoning and foreigners who live here a long time often lose their mental edge. I have noticed with myself. You live in a place where “thinking” is a non-concept and one forgets how to think or becomes “rusty” at it.

The fact that the USA is a democratic county has nothing to do with its opposition to a referendum on Taiwan independence. It has to do with the fact that the USA does not want the dipshits running this place to do something stupid at election time which will cause the taxpayers of America to have to send another US Navy fleet out here to settle the children (on both sides of the strait) down.

Capt. Brian
San Chung Navy Reserve
The “Real” Brown Water Navy

39

Is it possible to aid in the progress of the human rights situation in Taiwan without resolving the sovereignty issue?

40

Based on my 28 years of observation, I would say NO.

This is because the sovereignty issue underlies all other issues. Once you get this straightened out, 90% of these other matters will fall into place.

Why is there no respect for the international human rights standards here? Because the government has no legal authority, and is always trying to find ways to stress that it does have legal authority, and so wastes incredible time on all these non-issues.

Also, because the island cannot decide what its place in the world is, so of course it cannot decide on its proper relationship with people from the USA, Canada, England, Germany, France, etc. and even the PRC.