Many foreigners, particularly Germans, are struck by the efficiency of Taiwan’s administration in routine matters. Driver’s licenses, household registrations and similar procedures are handled swiftly, often decided on the spot, and occasionally even accompanied by preferential treatment.
However, this efficiency does not extend to all areas of government. Any foreigner with long-term residency in Taiwan — just like any Taiwanese — would have encountered the opposite: agencies, most notably the police, refusing to accept complaints and sending applicants away at the counter without consideration. This kind of behavior, although less common in other agencies, still occurs far too often. Two cases illustrate the problem:
In one personal experience, I was at the (already notorious) police station in New Taipei City’s Sinjhuang District (新莊). A young student entered and reported sexual harassment, stating that a man had touched her. In full view of everyone present, she was told that the matter was not serious enough and that she could not file a complaint. I was astonished — because the boundary between impoliteness and sexual harassment is far too vague to be decided summarily by the police. Such determinations fall within the authority of the prosecutor, not the officer at the desk.
In another case, a friend intended to personally submit a complex application to the Department of Investment Review at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The application had been carefully prepared with the assistance of a Taiwanese lawyer.
Frustrated, my friend called me to help with translation, since not a single English-speaking employee could be found in the entire department (responsible, ironically, for foreign investments).
The staff member in charge was visibly agitated. When I spoke with her by phone, she stated outright that the application had no chance of success and that the applicant should leave without submitting it. Given her demeanor, I advised my friend to withdraw for the moment.
After consulting the Taiwanese lawyer, I called her again. She repeated that she had the authority to make such “doorstep decisions” whenever she considered an application unfounded. I firmly pointed out the actual legal requirements. She responded irritably, noting that the opposing parties were Taiwanese — implying that the problem lay in the applicant being a foreigner.
When I insisted on the correct legal position, she retorted dryly that I was free to resubmit the application, but her decision would not change.
A formal complaint about this questionable conduct received no response from the ministry.
The legal situation is unequivocal: Every application, even if it appears baseless, must be accepted and reviewed. In administrative practice, decisions are subject to review by a superior. Rejections, in particular, must be reasoned, almost always in writing. Articles 37 and 43 of the Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) explicitly set out requirements regarding notification and reasoning for administrative acts.
Such “doorstep decisions” violate fundamental legal principles of the rule of law, as they effectively deprive applicants of any recourse. This erodes, rather than strengthens, public confidence in the legal system.
Why do Taiwanese and foreigners so often experience the opposite? The answer lies in the lack of sanctions: Employees face no consequences for refusing applications at the door.
Claudius Petzold is the founder of SuccessChengGong Ltd.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS