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
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS