Covering religious foundations
The Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 573 holds that the “State is not barred from regulating, by means of law, the management or disposition of the property owned by a religious group. In doing so, however, the principles of proportionality and clarity of law under Article 23 of the Constitution should be complied with.”
After all, property rights are a secular matter rather than a foundation for religious belief. It is only natural that secular affairs be regulated by law and remain unrestricted “except such as may be necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of other persons, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain social order or to advance public welfare,” as Article 23 stipulates.
The Cabinet’s draft law on foundations differs from the previous version by excluding text stipulating that “the regulations of the act do not apply to religious groups.”
This means that it applies to religious foundations, which has led to a dispute over whether religious foundations should be subjected to an act that regulates secular foundations.
A draft religious organization act submitted to the legislature for committee review in 2015 still has not been considered.
If the foundation act passes in a version that does not apply to religious foundations before a religious organization act is adopted, there will be no law to regulate religious groups.
That Articles 15 to 18 in the draft religious organization act regulate “religious foundations” shows its intent to cover religious foundations, although it is far less detailed and comprehensive than the draft foundation act.
If religious foundations should be subject to special regulations, using the same regulations as for other foundations would be inappropriate, so necessary articles should be proposed in the legislative review.
After the minister of the interior suggested in public that the foundation act should not apply to religious organizations, the interior ministry submitted complementary legislation intended to address religious organizations. Then they withdrew it. How could this work?
Lee Chi-sheng
New Taipei City
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with