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
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS