Iruan Ergui Wu's Tears

Perhaps you are unaware of the following details? I have attempted to review the court judgments to provide information that the media deliberately omitted:

Iruan Ergui Wu, bearing a Chinese surname, is named IRUAN ERGUI WU in Brazil. He is a Brazilian citizen born in Brazil in 1995 to Marisa da Silva Antunes Ergui, a Brazilian national, and Wu Teng-shu, a ROC national. From his birth until Wu Teng-shu returned to Taiwan to visit family on March 15, 2001, he lived entirely in Brazil. However, Wu Teng-shu passed away suddenly within a week of returning to Taiwan. Iruan Ergui Wu then lived with his paternal uncle, Wu Huo-yen, who refused to send Iruan Ergui Wu back to Brazil. His maternal grandmother, Rosa, immediately initiated custody litigation, filing a "preventive lawsuit seeking and concerning a minor" in the Youth Court of Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Federative Republic of Brazil, requesting that Wu Huo-yen return Iruan Ergui Wu. Considering that Wu Teng-shu had, prior to his death and under court notarization, entrusted grandmother Rosa as Iruan Ergui Wu's guardian—and finding that Wu Teng-shu had considered guardianship arrangements for Iruan Ergui Wu in the event of his own death—the court ruled that Wu Huo-yen should return the child to Rosa. When Rosa came to Taiwan to visit Iruan Ergui Wu in June 2001, Iruan Ergui Wu tightly embraced her and drew a picture. Upon analysis by an art psychology research expert, the conclusion of the drawing was: "In his subconscious, the child longs for everything in Brazil, considers himself Brazilian, and wants to return to Brazil as soon as possible." The Taiwan Kaohsiung District Court, having consulted the Social Bureau's family visit report and the evidence in the case file, opined: "The maternal society of Brazil is one that, in terms of legal systems and social life, is more capable of respecting women, esteeming mothers, and protecting children; it does not view males as a different class or grant them lower social status or dignity, which is no different from contemporary Taiwanese society." Furthermore, "After experiencing the pain of losing both parents, the ward (i.e., Iruan Ergui Wu) has remaining in this world only the plaintiff and his maternal half-brother, who share the closest blood ties with him. Moreover, they played an indelible role during the ward's prenatal, infancy, and early childhood development stages—meaning the imprint learning occurred during the ward's critical periods, forming a part of the ward's life." Additionally, "The ward (i.e., Iruan Ergui Wu) has also expressed that he misses the plaintiff (i.e., Rosa) very much, as well as his brothers and sisters and pet dog in Brazil, and that he wants to return to Brazil to find them and play soccer with them."

I believe most people have no impression of the above information, perhaps no interest in it, and perhaps still harbor doubts. However, what the judiciary saw was clearly different from the narrative presented by the media. What is deplorable, though, is that the media and the Wu family have simplified the entire event into: "Iruan Ergui Wu said in front of the media microphones: I want to stay in Taiwan." Yet Iruan Ergui Wu's blank expression, which even revealed repulsion toward the media's intrusion, was accompanied by a voiceover from the media stating: "Iruan Ergui Wu's expression is full of reluctance to part." As the media attempted to highlight reports that the case failed to respect the child's right to express opinions under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Iruan Ergui Wu repeatedly failed to utter "I want to stay in Taiwan" in front of Vice President Lu. In the media's next theatrical move, they simply had Iruan Ergui Wu write it down first, and then displayed the bold characters on screen to avoid an awkward failure of the performance. It is one thing for the media or the Wu family to disrespect the judiciary, but to bluntly push an eight-year-old child into the unfamiliar and complex media environment and the tug-of-war between adults, and even sacrifice the child's daily life at school and home—does this truly comply with "children's human rights"? Has anyone here genuinely considered "the best interests of the child"?

The compulsory execution procedures following the judicial ruling escalated Iruan Ergui Wu's psychological trauma into physical devastation. Due to repeated delays by the Wu family, the court had no choice but to resort to the ultimate measure of "compulsory surrender of children." On television screens, Iruan Ergui Wu could be seen crying out amidst the tug-of-war between police and members of the Wu family. It was reported that his uncle, Wu Huo-yen, wept nearby, telling the media that he felt sorry for Iruan Ergui Wu and his late brother. While viewers at home were moved to tears, we cannot help but ask: Who caused Iruan Ergui Wu's tears and fear? When international media ran bold headlines describing a "crude execution," or the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Brazil annotated it as "a joke," one wonders what the general public thinks of this.

In fact, after Iruan Ergui Wu's departure, even more questions remain for us to ponder. Whose actions ultimately caused Iruan Ergui Wu's tears? Was it the Wu family? Was it Rosa? Was it the legal professionals and elected representatives who rushed to the front lines to offer "assistance"? Was it the media? Or was it the judiciary?

※ Published in: Liberty Times