Now that Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has become president, his ideal of being a leader to all Taiwanese is being put to the test. How the Broadcasting Corp of China’s (BCC) court case involving the plots of land on Minzu Rd in Banciao, and the change of zoning status for the area previously owned by the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Institute on Policy Research and Development, are resolved will be a crucial test for Ma.
Both cases involve the KMT’s assets. If the KMT uses the presidency to intervene in either case, it would signify a return to the era where the party and state were not separate. Ma has reportedly asked KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) to get rid of all the party assets. If Ma pulls this off, he could just prove to be the president of all Taiwanese.
The first two failed trials of the civil suit launched by the Ministry of Transportation’s Department of Posts and Telecommunication against the BCC, demanding the return of the land in Banciao, were overturned in a third trial at the Supreme Court and submitted for re-trial at the High Court.
The case is complicated. The land in Banciao was government-owned, but not government utilized. The National Property Act (國有財產法) says such properties should be directly managed by the National Property Administration or by a suitable authority or local government body entrusted by the Ministry of Finance.
However, the BCC does not qualify as either a local government body or a suitable authority. Therefore, its change of registration to become the managing authority of the land on June 5, 1981, was illegal.
Second, the Land Registration Regulation (土地登記規則) states that the registration of land should be conducted by the obligee and the obligor. The registration application, however, listed the obligee as the BCC, and its legal agent was former KMT secretary-general Ma Shu-li (馬樹禮). The obligor was the Republic of China (ROC) and the managing authority was the BCC, again with Ma Shu-li as its legal agent.
Therefore, the registration naming BCC the managing authority of the land was illegal. Ma Shu-li did not have the authority to act as the agent of the ROC alongside the BCC and transfer the ownership of the land to the BCC.
In the High Court re-trial, the judges adopted the majority of the Supreme Court’s interpretation and ruled on Feb. 5 that the BCC must cancel the transfer of managing authority and all claims of ownership so that the land will revert to the government. The BCC has decided to appeal.
The Department of Posts and Telecommunications instigated the suit and finally got a break with the third trial. However, now that the KMT is back in power, things could change. If the new government forces the Department of Posts and Telecommunications to retract the suit, then the efforts invested in retrieving KMT party assets will have been wasted.
In his early days as KMT chairman, Ma Ying-jeou’s sale of the land belonging to the KMT-affiliated Institute of Policy Research and Development near Muzha to the Yuan Lih Construction Corp caused an uproar. The zoning status of the area remained unchanged for three years, until April 15 when the Taipei Urban Planning Commission agreed to change the zoning status from “administrative” to “residential.”
The Taipei City Government’s delay in the zoning proposal was intially due to the fact that it needed approval from the Ministry of the Interior and this would have been denied under the previous government.
Now that the KMT holds sway, chances that the zoning alteration will be approved have greatly increased.
However, if the change goes through, it will be clear that the KMT government is determined to protect its party assets — and should be punished.
The assets in the two cases combined are worth more than NT$20 billion (US$656 million). The court cases will determine the legitimacy of the KMT’s acquisition of its assets and will be a key test for the new government.
Yang Shyh-ren is a former chief editor of the Chinese-language Economic Daily.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS