On Tuesday next week, the Judicial Yuan is to decide whether it would issue a constitutional interpretation for the Act Governing the Settlement of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations (政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例), following a complaint by the Control Yuan.
Ever since the promulgation of the act, people from the party-state elite and vested interests have said it is unconstitutional, ignoring that the legislation follows Germany’s transitional justice laws.
Even more absurd is the Taipei High Administrative Court judges calling for such a constitutional interpretation, although the request has no merit in terms of democracy and the rule of law.
Leaving aside the issue of the Control Yuan members appointed by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) submitting this request for a constitutional interpretation in a case that has nothing to do with the powers of Control Yuan members, the Council of Grand Justices must reject the complaint from these party-state Control Yuan members — who are only intended to protect the party assets — because it does not meet procedural requirements.
Even more objectionable, the judges’ call for a constitutional interpretation completely ignores the laws in Germany and other democracies in Europe, as well as those in the US.
They are calling the act unconstitutional without investigating the facts in accordance with the law, which harms the public’s respect for judges.
When Taipei High Administrative Court judges Lee Yu-ching (李玉卿), Chung Chi-wei (鐘啟煒) and Lee Chun-hao (李君豪) submitted their request for a constitutional interpretation, they were of the opinion that addressing the party assets issue only requires a civil lawsuit, fully ignoring that Germany resorted to special legislation to be able to resolve the statute of limitations issue.
Even more absurd, all they had to do was to search the Control Yuan’s verdict database to find out that a simple civil lawsuit would not be sufficient to resolve the party asset issue, which originated during the authoritarian era and whose statute of limitations has already expired.
In addition, a civil verdict states that “based on concerns of legal stability and since the statute of limitations and exclusion periods already have expired, and since it is possible that a third party has obtained the rights, it could in practice be difficult to meet the principles of the rule of law, so it seems that the only feasible way is to create special legislation to make the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] fulfill its duty to return its ill-gotten party assets.”
It is clear that the judges filed the request on the KMT’s behalf without conducting even the most basic research, such as searching previous verdicts.
Even worse, the trio claim that the act is directed at a specific political party, namely the KMT.
This contradicts the facts, as the first party to be fined by the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee was the Democratic Action Party, not the KMT, when it was fined NT$1 million (US$32,762 at the current exchange rate) by the committee in its first administrative fine on April 27.
This could also be easily verified online, but the trio failed their duty to conduct due diligence, which only goes to show that a few judges are making emotional decisions aimed at protecting ill-gotten party assets.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and vice chairman of the Taiwan Forever Association.
Translated by Perry Svensson
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS