Human Rights in Tawan

Until recently, and apart from 50 years’ Japanese occupation during World War Two, Taiwan was administered as a province of mainland China since 1683. Thus, over the centuries, Taiwan inherited China’s socio-economic and cultural values and attitudes.

Chinese traditional social mores have revolved around Confucian philosophical norms and ideals. Such a philosophy has at its core an emphasis on the community. Accordingly, the individual is identified not by a set of rights but rather by his/her relationship or association with his/her family and broader community. Within such an environment, a code of ethics evolved which placed a duty on the individual to uphold group harmony, even if this necessitated suppressing or subordinating individual claims and grievances.

The Chinese (and consequently Taiwanese) constitution is underpinned by this philosophy. In this context, a strong government is seen as a prerequisite for sustainable democracy. It is therefore significant that the judiciary has traditionally been perceived as a servant of both the individual and the state.

However, political awareness of human rights in Taiwan has marked a departure from that country’s philosophical foundations, particularly since democratisation. Taiwan’s political preoccupation with human rights is indicated by other recent events. In a boost to the credibility of the Taiwanese judiciary, the case of three detainees (the ‘Hsichih Trio’) on death row since 1992 and reportedly beaten in custody was re-opened in 2000. Also, Taiwan has gradually reduced the number of offences that have carried the death penalty; the Minister for Justice had predicted that the end of 2004 would mark the complete eradication of capital punishment in the country. Furthermore, the government granted the establishment of Taiwan’s first labour federation, and recognised three independent organisations representing homosexuals.

Political awareness has been mirrored by the population’s rising social consciousness. Encouraged by relatively liberal media ownership laws, individuals have been able to voice their concerns regarding human rights issues, as well as other community concerns (such as environmental). The press, in particular, is one forum that facilitates discussion of broad-ranging issues.

The changing tide of social attitude has not yet negated the cultural norms engrained in Taiwan by centuries of Chinese rule. Furthermore, broad education of the population as to individual civil liberties has, to date, been minimal. Thus, in spite of increased public awareness, these two factors, in combination, have manifested a general lack of understanding of human rights in everyday life.

As a result, several areas still cause concern amongst human rights groups:

- Invasion of privacy by wire-tapping is reported to be widespread.

- Law enforcement officials, in arresting suspected criminals, have flouted the ‘incidental to arrest’ powers to search locations beyond the immediate arrest site, as well as continue to defy a Council of Grand Justices ruling against searches without warrants.

- Once in custody, detainees have reportedly been abused with a view to coercing a confession: no legal obligation rests with police to record interviews or permit legal representation. Evidence acquired by this way, or via the abovementioned searches, is usually admitted into trial through a judicial discretion, and used as a basis for conviction. Indeed, police are rarely found guilty of obtaining evidence illegally. Ironically, some prosecutors, in their drive to stamp out organised crime, are said to have continually breached procedural fairness.

Discrimination of disadvantaged groups remains prevalent. In spite of some legislative enactments, child prostitution is rife, and child abuse generally has been identified as a key problem. Rights of other vulnerable groups have not been adequately protected. Commercially driven media reporting techniques have, in some cases, fanned prejudicial social sentiments

Indigenous Taiwanese face problems of educational under-achievement, low socio-economic status, and high rates of alcoholism. Governmental decisions centring on the allocation of lands and natural resources have seldom been prefaced by consideration of indigenous Taiwanese land rights, culture or traditions.

Women, too, are subject to prejudicial treatment. Cultural norms and social pressures dissuade female victims of violence and rape from reporting such incidents. Moreover, sex discrimination in the workplace remains prevalent in spite of the passing of the Equal Protection Employment Act in 2001. Age, marriage and pregnancy are factors that either hinder women finding gainful employment, or sometimes compel them to quit work. Also, employers have dismissed union leaders without reasonable cause.

Reports assert that employers continually exploit migrant workers. Occupational and work-related injuries and deaths are at a high level; technological advances have yet to ‘filter down’ to the workshop and factory floors.

The major obstacle in providing administrative redress for grievances or, more basically, implementing programs aimed at educating the public as to their fundamental human rights, is found in the structurally inadequate, poorly funded Taiwanese institutions that presently exist for fulfilling such obligations. Rectifying this situation fundamentally requires a concerted and coordinated effort over time. Realising such an effort would crystallise the heightened public and political responsiveness of the role of human rights in day-to-day living.

China cites its reunification with Hong Kong under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement as a successful example of integration in its pitch to Taiwan advocating against independence. China holds that Taiwan, once absorbed by the mainland, would be entitled to retain its socio-economic arrangements as a ‘special administrative region’ of the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan, however, is resisting China’s advances. It asserts that its high level autonomy, coupled with a fully functional, democratized political system, makes it less attractive than Hong Kong as a candidate for reunification.

The policy underlying Taiwan’s human rights agenda supports its claim that it is incompatible with China’s treatment of individual rights. Political awareness on the island is beginning to counteract the cultural norms established by the Chinese some centuries ago, which emphasized the individual’s place within the group. Nevertheless, an inadequate administrative framework is in place to educate and uphold human rights. The imminent installation of the National Human Rights Commission reflects the reality that Taiwanese politicians are responding to social demands.

* Note: It is important to start to review the rights' of people in Taiwan, then we can discuss about the various aspects of Re-invent Taiwan. This brief review is based on several different previous reports on the same issue.