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
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS