In August 2018, a tourist from China was electrocuted to death by a malfunctioning street light while cycling in Kaohsiung’s Lujhu District (路竹) during a cycling tour of Taiwan. The family sued the city for wrongful death and demanded state compensation. The Kaohsiung branch of the High Court ruled that citizens of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are regarded as Republic of China (ROC) — Taiwanese — nationals, and hence the State Compensation Act (國家賠償法) is applicable.
In other words, state compensation should be paid for the accidental death of a Chinese tourist.
The ruling has created an uproar. It is problematic for two reasons:
First, although the legal status of Taiwan’s government in the international community has not been determined, it is undeniable that Taiwan and China are two separate entities. Taiwanese laws should not be applicable to citizens of China.
For years, the government under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been emphasizing its official stance through policies, statements and actions, making it clear that “the ROC and the PRC are two independent countries.”
Yet, according to the Constitution, Taiwan is divided into the “free area” and the “mainland area.”
Moreover, in the Constitution and the later Additional Articles of the Constitution (憲法增修條文), the framework of “one China” has not been changed. This is why the court offered its own interpretations and ruled in favor of PRC citizens.
Second, Taiwan has almost never been in the process of transitional justice. Its judiciary has never been improved through self-reform activities or constitutional changes. As a result, the judicial system is not founded upon Taiwan’s national identity, and the whole system lacks a viewpoint that affirms Taiwan as “an autonomous political entity with its own eligible constituents and significant boundaries.”
For decades, judges and prosecutors have immersed themselves in the system established by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), relying on the “one China” framework to handle cases that involve Taiwan and China.
Worse, when younger judges and prosecutors start their careers, they would also be influenced by the system’s perspective and its organizational culture.
Given these problems, the ruling that considers Chinese citizens to be Taiwanese was not surprising.
Due to the reality at home and abroad, Taiwan is unable to establish its public opinion through a referendum, neither through external forces nor of its own volition. This has hindered Taiwan from making changes to the Constitution.
The constitutional laws do not correspond with reality. Under the constitutional framework, Chinese citizens could be regarded as Taiwanese, yet the public finds it ridiculous. If the ruling is not appealed, Chinese could feign injury to extort money based on the State Compensation Act.
The ruling must be appealed.
Roger Wu is a senior assistant of a chain bookstore. He lives in New Taipei City.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS