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
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS