1997台灣人權報告
2019-05-16
發表者:台灣人權促進會 |
發表時間:1997年12月 |
中文摘要:
|
英文摘要:1997 was a dark time for human rights in Taiwan. Due largely to a series of sensational and violent cases that remained unsolved for long periods, a mood of insecurity has settled on our island, and public opinion has started to rally around the idea of "chaotic times demand severe law," which unfortunately is bound to involve many types of human rights violations. With public order given priority over individual rights, the administrative authority of the state has been pushed beyond its proper limits. Using "legal" means, the state is encroaching on the basic life of the people. We have even seen the emergence of frankly anti-human rights attitudes, claiming a basis in some kind of "traditional culture" and a complete rejection of cultural relativism. From this we can see the special character of Taiwan's human rights problem and the particular difficulties facing human rights workers here.
Therefore, in the Taiwan Association for Human Rights' (TAHR) Taiwan Human Rights Report 1997, in addition to continuing our monitoring of several topics that we have reported on in the past, we have added special sections reflecting these developments. By offering analysis of the major events of this year, we aim to provide a thorough profile of the human rights conditions in Taiwan. A year ago, we would not have expected that we would begin this report with a discussion of a string of major criminal cases. The cases of Liu Pang-you and Peng Wan-ru, which occurred last year, still remain unsolved, and of course no summary of Taiwan in 1997 could fail to mention the Pai Hsiao-yen case, which dominated all the media in Taiwan for almost the entire year. The impact of these cases on the people of Taiwan has been enormous. The law enforcement authorities have tried to allay the feelings of suspicion and fear among the people by explaining that the overall crime rate has actually dropped over previous years, but to no avail. The call "chaotic times demand severe law" has gone up, with its attempt to draw an absolute distinction between "good people" and "bad people." The rights of individuals are in retreat before the advancing power of the executive and judicial authorities. The Director-General of the National Police Administration issues a "shoot to kill" order; the Minister of Justice proposes a return to corporal punishment, with the intent to deter crime by frightening the people. All this only feeds the cruelty of a society already somewhat bloodthirsty and disdainful of human rights. Of course, finding the balance between the values of "freedom" and "security" is among the most difficult problems facing all free societies. Is it true that severe laws, such as the death penalty, can really improve public safety? Taiwan already has death penalty in effect for many more crimes than most other countries, but we do not see a noticeable deterrent effect. It is perhaps more plausible that the very low rate of apprehension of criminals is a primary cause of the current crime problem: a criminal that does not expect to be caught is not concerned with the severity of the punishments that hypothetically await him. For years, TAHR has continuously called for an upgrade of the technical capacity of the police to investigate cases in a scientific manner, which can only help to preserve the right to life for all citizens. We feel that the "chaotic times demand severe law" position not only offers no hope of solving our current problems, but it only brings into relief the deficiencies in police capabilities and their concomitant use of improper methods, such as torture, as a primary means of collecting evidence. When the judicial process violates justice, it seriously violates the human rights of the people, up to and including the wrongful sentencing of the innocent. Even more alarming is the prospect of the society entering a tragic circle, where unjust law enforcement incites more crime, which leads to calls for more unjust law enforcement, .... In the Taiwan Human Rights Report 1997, we have, in the sections entitled "Judicial Human Rights," "Human Rights Update," and "Report on the Progress (or Lack Thereof) in the Case of Su Jian-ho, et al." addressed these questions from the perspective of individual cases and detailed description of these situations. On another front, the attempt to use strict controls to improve the society also parallels the increased power of the executive authorities. Last year we addressed the issue of the campaign against organized crime, also quite popular, which created significant violations of procedural justice in its investigation tactics. Moreover, we analyzed and critiqued the creation of several types of "anti-crime regulations" that in fact violated basic principles of human rights. This type of practice has not been reduced this year. Taking Taipei City as an example, we have witnessed a stream of populist executive actions, notably the forcible eviction of squatters from the Number 14 and 15 Parks, the curfew on young people, and the sudden decision to ban the remaining licensed prostitutes. Without necessarily taking a particular stand on the goals of these campaigns, or their morality (the issue of licensed prostitution, in particular, raises unusually thorny moral dilemmas), we are concerned that the City Government spent little effort considering whether these exercises of administrative discretion exceeded legal limits. Trying to please the majority by sacrificing the rights of smaller and weaker elements, they neglected the real violations of human rights that occurred. We feel that this issue deserves to be discussed more seriously in our society, and, in "Human Rights Update," we explore it in greater depth. Among several concrete aspects of human rights, we have selected "Prison Human Rights," "Rights of the Elderly," "Women's Rights," "Youth Rights," and "Environmental Survival Rights" for further analysis. For example, this year environmental issues can be portrayed as issues of public security. The collapse at the Lincoln Estates and the destruction wrought by Typhoon Amber revealed the dangerous extent to which slopelands have been wantonly developed and the insufficiency of efforts to protect water and soil resources. In addition, we note the government's lackadaisical enforcement of the Environmental Impact Assessments Law; the increasing severity of the waste disposal problem; and the lack of a satisfactory solution to the question of disposal of nuclear waste, which has kept the government from fulfilling its promise to remove the waste from Lanyu Island and led to the outrageous proposal to ship waste to North Korea. All of these demonstrate the government's attitude of implementing "environmental colonialism" against weak groups both within our society and outside it. These environmental justice issues are well worth our attention. For workers' rights, other than the expansion of the Labor Standards Law to cover all employees, this year mostly saw setbacks. Starting from the increasing problem of unemployment, the threats to livelihood, conflicts between labor and management, and occupational accidents all have risen. It is clear that, under the banner of raising national competitiveness, labor rights are easily sacrificed for purely economic gains. A new area of focus, brought to our attention by the continuous melodramas of the Pai Hsiao-yen case, is the threat posed to human rights by the media. From the kidnapping of Pai Hsiao-yen through the hostage-taking of Chen Chin-hsing and his surrender, the problems of the media have become all too apparent. Grossly insufficient professional discipline, a confused conception of the public's right to know, and a class bias in reporting all create human rights violations. All types of news media use exaggerated methods to try to scoop their competitors, unconcerned about possible threats to the security of the people involved or the terrifying impact of their reports; they succeed only in shocking their audiences. The identities of victims and their families are often revealed in excruciating detail, exposing them to several types of harm. Many media organizations have abandoned the principle of social responsibility, replacing it with raw consumerism as the basis for assessing the value of news stories. In the past, the media were seen as the "fourth estate," on a par with the judiciary as a social justice "safety valve." Now this safety valve has just become another commodity. In the section "The Media and Human Rights," we address this problem in more depth and discuss the question of how to establish professional discipline and guarantee human rights. This will also be a continuing focus of TAHR's work. Lastly, we have, also for the first time, expanded our coverage to include the special problems of the both Taiwan's youth and its elderly senior citizens. The former have been the subject of curfews and other restrictive policies, ostensibly meant as "protection," imposed by local governments; they also have suffered from the inadequacies of the educational system. The latter have been largely neglected by the government, and thus are all too often victims of neglect and abuse. We hope that TAHR can assist these long-neglected and oft-suppressed groups of victims by joining forces with specialized NGOs working in these fields to work for an improvement of their human rights conditions. Overall, the human rights situation in Taiwan this year is still unsatisfactory, falling considerably short of international standards. We also feel that all sectors of society, from the common citizens to reporters, lawyers, judges, and officials, are seriously lacking in human rights consciousness, which naturally leads us to realize the crucial importance of human rights education. In the current climate of public opinion, human rights work is not easy; human rights workers even have to endure blame. We not only face the hostility of the conservative forces who want to place social order above protection for the individual, we must also confront the deeper issue of those who reject cultural relativism and try to make use of the so-called "Asian values" argument. We have to be watchful for any inroads this camp might make in our country and for the future challenges that might bring. We face an additional challenge, in these years, of creating an environment where human rights work is properly dissociated from the struggle for power among the various political parties and factions. Many might be surprised that we have decided to criticize policies of leaders who have made significant contributions to the cause of human rights. They should not be: protesting and governing and are two very different activities, and we will hold the latter activity to the same strict standards regardless of the identity of those in power. In particular, as human rights workers, we understand that the crucial nature of the rule of law is that it frees us from dependence on the good will of rulers; however well-intentioned a policy or action, if it corrodes the rule of law, it also corrodes the protection that citizens enjoy against future, less noble, policies and actions. As Taiwan makes progress, as we feel it must, the standards to which TAHR holds Taiwanese society will be raised, to keep them above the level that most people can easily accept. We are not rest satisfied at any point with the progress that is made. We also hold ourselves to an equally high standard, and recognize that we, as an organization, can improve ourselves in many ways. For example, while we have here endeavored to present the most objective and accurate report possible, the many examples we see from around the world remind us of the need for ever-increasing professionalism. However, if the Taiwan Human Rights Report 1997 stirs controversy or discussion, we will consider it a success, as only by such a process can human rights conceptions, including our own, move forward. Finally, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is entering its fiftieth anniversary year, people all over the world have begun celebrating and affirming the contributions it has made to the work of guaranteeing human rights, while hoping for an even more complete fulfillment of its principles. As a member of international society, Taiwan must not stand aloof. Thus, the unswerving goals of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, in concert with all other human rights groups in Taiwan, must be to promote human rights education, to urge the establishment of a national human rights institution, and to press for the realization of the ideals of the Universal Declaration. The successful completion of the Taiwan Human Rights Report 1997 is the result of a collaborative effort by many people, and we would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation. First, we would like to thank those who, despite the pressures of their busy schedules, took the time to contribute the articles that went into the Report. They are: National Taiwan University Law Professor Lee Mau-sheng; Judicial Reform Foundation Vice Secretary-general Sue Wang; Taiwan Daily News reporter Chen Chen-kan; Awakening Foundation Chairwoman Chang Chuan-fen; Taiwan Labor Front Taipei Branch Secretary-general Liao Wei-cheng; League of Welfare Improvement for Older People Secretary-general Wu Yu-chin; former Taiwan Environmental Protection Union Chairman Professor Kao Cheng-yan; and our President Kenneth H.C. Chiu and Executive Board members He Chao-dong, Cheryl Lai, and Chen Chun-hung. We must also especially thank the spirited group of volunteers who helped with translation and typing, and without whom production of the English version would not have been possible: Dennis Engbarth, Lu Chia-chin, Janet Fu, Frank Chen, Chiu Chuan-chian, Chen Su-fen, Arthur Kuo, Jan Su-tin, Wang Kaun-hua, and Liu Yi-hsin. Several other NGOs in Taiwan helped the effort by contributing data and opinions: the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union, the Humanistic Education Foundation, the Judicial Reform Foundation, and the Environmental Prospect Weekly. Finally, we want to express our appreciation to all those, both within Taiwan and elsewhere, who have supported the cause of human rights in Taiwan with such devotion. |
全文下載: pdf檔案下載 |
相關網站: 網站連結(另開新視窗) |
分類: |