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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS