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
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
Since leaving office last year, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has been journeying across continents. Her ability to connect with international audiences and foster goodwill toward her country continues to enhance understanding of Taiwan. It is possible because she can now walk through doors in Europe that are closed to President William Lai (賴清德). Tsai last week gave a speech at the Berlin Freedom Conference, where, standing in front of civil society leaders, human rights advocates and political and business figures, she highlighted Taiwan’s indispensable global role and shared its experience as a model for democratic resilience against cognitive warfare and
The diplomatic spat between China and Japan over comments Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made on Nov. 7 continues to worsen. Beijing is angry about Takaichi’s remarks that military force used against Taiwan by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” necessitating the involvement of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Rather than trying to reduce tensions, Beijing is looking to leverage the situation to its advantage in action and rhetoric. On Saturday last week, four armed China Coast Guard vessels sailed around the Japanese-controlled Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), known to Japan as the Senkakus. On Friday, in what
RSS