The day Typhoon Soulik pummeled Taiwan, the Taichung High Administrative Court rejected the appeal by four households in Dapu Borough (大埔) in Miaoli County’s Jhunan Township (竹南鎮) to put a halt to the demolition of their homes.
For these households — and in particular for Chang Sen-wen (張森文), who had a nervous breakdown as a result of the demolition threat and has been hospitalized in a psychiatric ward — the force of this decision was no less devastating than Soulik itself.
Quite simply, the court rejected their appeal because money trumps everything.
The court’s decision says to Taiwanese that anything can be bought off by monetary compensation, and that the rich and powerful who are part of this conspiracy can do anything they want this way, including by-passing Taiwan’s constitutional basic human rights.
News reports reveal the main reason for the rejection of the appeal to halt demolition — in addition to it not being a “matter of emergency” — is that there was no “irreparable damage” to the families.
Destruction of homes goes hand in hand with monetary compensation, and at an early stage the Miaoli County Government set aside the compensation to be paid to these four households.
Despite the fact that the land expropriation first approved by the Ministry of Justice was halted because it was found to be illegal, monetary compensation can still be used to compensate losses for the households if their homes are demolished.
The emotional and sentimental bonds that tie these four families to their homes do not fall under the protection of the law, and they are not reason enough to halt demolition.
However, the judges have forgotten that the money used to pay the compensation is taxpayers’ money and not the private funds of Minister of Justice Liu Cheng-hung (劉政鴻), or the salaries of the judges themselves.
Even if the judges will not think twice about spending the government’s money, they should at least consider the fact that their position requires that they correct illegal administrative decisions and protect the rights of the public.
No court would allow that reconstruction is part of the restoration that a person bringing a lawsuit against an illegal administration decision can request.
Surely this alone would make it imperative that demolition be halted during court proceedings to guarantee the rights of the complainant.
All in all, it all comes down to money. The values manifested by the court’s decision tell us that as long as you have power and money, any member of the public is just a sitting duck.
This makes you wonder exactly which of the freedoms of expression and personal and other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are not up for sale.
The fundamental reason for government is to serve and protect the public’s basic rights. If it is incapable of providing this protection and can only offer monetary compensation after the violation and deprivation of our basic rights is carried out, why is there any need for either nation or Constitution?
It is astonishing that the judiciary, whose duty it is to counterbalance administrative arbitrariness and maintain social justice and fairness, can make such a preposterous and outdated decision in this day and age.
We can only hope such decisions and views are of a disappearing conservative minority.
If not, the judiciary has just announced its demise and the Republic of China will follow in its footsteps.
Chan Shun-kuei is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS