After the deadly gas pipeline explosions in Greater Kaohsiung’s Cianjhen (前鎮) and Lingya (苓雅) districts on July 31 and Aug. 1, it has been said that the central and local governments are out of step with each other.
One of the controversial issues concerning central and local governments is whether the Crime Victim Protection Act (犯罪被害人保護法) and the State Compensation Act (國家賠償法) cover the huge losses caused by the disaster.
Article 12 of the Crime Victim Protection Act states that, when paying compensation to people affected by crime, the government has the right to make a claim for reimbursement from the convicted defendant.
Furthermore, to ensure that these rights are protected, Article 27 of the Crime Victim Protection Act states that the district prosecutors’ office can request that the courts provisionally seize the property of a convicted defendant.
Therefore, it would appear that the victims of the Kaohsiung blasts could be compensated in quick and simple fashion.
However, Article 4 of the Crime Victim Protection Act states that only family members of a person who dies or is seriously injured as a result of a crime are eligible for compensation. In the case of the Kaohsiung explosions, more than 1,000 households were affected, but not many people meet the criteria to obtain compensation.
Even if the criteria are met, the issue is compensation and not indemnification, so insurance and indemnification payments must be deducted from the total amount.
Furthermore, there are compensation limits set at; NT$1 million (US$33,370) for each victim to support dependents, which cannot be fulfilled after the victim’s death, and for loss or reduction of work ability or increased living expenses of a seriously injured victim; NT$400,000 each for medical treatment and for mental distress; and NT$300,000 for funeral expenses. This will obviously be of limited assistance to the people affected by the Kaohsiung disaster.
In addition, the issuance of crime victim compensation, subrogation or provisional seizure of property belonging to a convicted defendant are not the responsibility of the Greater Kaohsiung Government.
Instead, the district prosecutors’ office is solely responsible for this, and given that prosecutors are not sure of the reasons for the explosions or who was responsible, it will be extremely hard to start compensation procedures.
Article 3 of the State Compensation Act states that “[the] state shall be liable for damage to any person’s life, body, or property resulting from a defect in the installation or management of any government-owned public facility. The compensating authority shall have the right to reimbursement from the said third person who is liable for the damage referred to in the preceding paragraph.”
Since the Greater Kaohsiung Government was in charge of managing the underground pipelines, it could seek reimbursement from those responsible for the blasts after having paid out compensations.
As cases involving the filing of damages by people affected by a disaster against those responsible often take a long time, such a method could allow faster access to compensation and for immediate expenses to be covered.
Although different levels of government have budgets for national compensation, it remains questionable if this will be enough to cover the huge costs of this disaster.
Furthermore, judging from the information released so far, the Greater Kaohsiung Government’s long-term negligence and a lack of monitoring of the pipeline installation work were two of the main factors behind the disaster. As a result, it is likely that there will be a dispute over responsibility between the city government and any parties found guilty in the matter, and that could influence the entire process of national compensation.
Also, Article 13 of the Toxic Chemical Substances Control Act (毒性化學物質管理法) states that although the registration for the transportation and handling of propene and similar toxic substances should be lodged with local governments, these things must first be approved by the central governing authority.
In addition, the central and local governments should share responsibility for the negligence involved in the laying and management of the pipelines that caused the explosions instead of just blaming each other. The country is one unit, so why this separation between the central and local governments?
To solve these problems, those in charge should draw up a plan for reconstruction and indemnification as soon as possible.
If the central and local governments insist on blaming each other, helpless victims will find themselves all alone.
Wu Ching-chin is chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.