Rule of law in Taiwan
I live in a building complex in Taichung County and recently it was time to renew the contracts for the service providers and building management company. Several board members wanted to change some providers because of dissatisfaction with the quality of service provided. The board agreed to review all the contracts and send out requests for bids for the providers the board was uncertain it wanted to renew. One of these was the building management company itself.
The service providers were surveyed and votes taken. The board initially agreed on gardening and cleaning, soil and garbage removal, swimming pool guard and recycling providers without argument. It was, however, unable to come to an agreement on a provider for elevator repair services and building management services.
There was a vote and a new elevator services provider selected. A vote was also supposed to be taken to select a building management company. Some board members walked out after realizing the current firm was going to lose, but a quorum for the meeting remained and a new management company was voted in.
The next day a representative from the building management company presented contracts to the board chairman. These named the old elevator services provider and the old building management company as selected providers despite the fact that they had lost the vote at the previous night’s election. The building management company contends these contracts are valid even though their representative was well aware of the outcome of the board’s vote.
The members of the board who voted to change providers submitted the minutes of the June 23 meeting to the building management company to be posted, but it refused. Board members then put copies of the meeting results into residents’ mailboxes. As recorded by security cameras, the building manager and the board chairman removed these announcements by sticking their hands in residents’ mailboxes. We do not know what else they removed because apparently the items were shredded. The police were called and shown the evidence, but we had to practically beg them to even write down the details and it is possible they didn’t bother to file a police report.
The next evening, the board members who voted for a change again attempted to distribute the meeting results (addressed and in envelopes). The next morning (as recorded by the building security cameras), a resident who works for the building management company removed 175 pieces of mail and put them in a plastic bag as building security guards watched. The bag was in the hands of the building manager when one of our residents encountered him. It contained a number of pieces of personal mail along with the items the board members had placed in the mailboxes. The police were called again. Complaints were filed and the police placed an announcement — though only after strong encouragement — indicating that complaints could be filed against the resident in question if people living in the building came to the police station.
At this time, the building management company remains unchanged. Many residents are fearful and feel personally unsafe. The building manager and the security guards who participated in or watched this happen are still on staff. Personally, I do not feel supported by the police and the rule of law and am also concerned for the safety of my family.
Tom Carroll
Wurih Township,
Taichung County
A 50-year-old on Wednesday last week died while under anesthesia at a Taipei cosmetic clinic shortly after undergoing a penis enlargement procedure. The surgeon was arrested for suspected medical malpractice, again bringing to the surface shortcomings in the regulation of cosmetic medicine. Media reports said the clinic owner and surgeon, surnamed Ting (丁), was previously convicted of negligent homicide for a postsurgical death and had been charged with coercion and aggravated assault after allegedly stopping a patient from calling for an ambulance. He had also been fined for failing inspections and had allegedly permitted people without medical licenses to assist
It was most annoying last week to read Chairman Xi Jinping’s (習近平) fulsome encomium to the People’s Liberation Army during the Eightieth Anniversary celebrations of victory over Japan in World War II. Comrade Xi’s soaring rhetoric was stuffed with “martyrs, sacrifice, solemnity and unwavering resolve” in praise of the “Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.” His aspirations overflowed with “world peace” and love of the United Nations, of which China is a founding member. The Liberation Army Daily said that every word from General Secretary Xi Jinping “resounded in his powerful voice, illuminating the
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
RSS