No excuse for court delay
In February 2018, the Executive Yuan’s Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee designated the National Women’s League of the Republic of China as a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) organization.
The league retaliated by filing an administrative lawsuit against the Executive Yuan. This case was then brought to the Supreme Court for resolution. In August 2020, the justices announced that the party assets regulations were constitutional.
The recovery of ill-gotten party assets is an important step in achieving a democratic and constitutional order in the nation.
However, the Taipei High Administrative Court dropped the ball and stalled the proceedings in the “preparatory phase” without reconvening a court session.
The Executive Yuan’s litigation over the league’s nationalization of NT$38.7 billion (US$1.89 billion) in military and labor donations to the league has likewise stalled.
The Taipei High Administrative Court’s ruling was halted due to a constitutional interpretation. The judge proceeded with the on-schedule trying of the case through a hearing plan and there was no dragging out of the case.
A high-profile, significant case has been pushed down the docket for six years now, remaining unresolved, even though the judge’s interpretation was released four years ago.
It is exasperating that no headway has been made. Taipei High Administrative Court officials have said that even the court’s personnel do not wish to see the stalling, much less the public, who have high expectations of legal system reform.
Will this case end up expiring due to exceeding a statute of limitations? Is there a proper reason for the continuous delay? Should we blame the presiding judge for their idleness or for intentionally pushing down on the brake pedal? What exactly are the contents of this judge’s so-called “hearing plan?”
Since the case has been sitting in the public trial phase, there is no suitable excuse through a principle of closed deliberations that could be used to explain the delay away.
The Taipei High Administrative Court must give a detailed explanation to the public so the goals of implementing transitional justice and improving public confidence in the judiciary do not become slogans that deceive the public into thinking it could achieve justice.
Tien Fong-wen
New Taipei City
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS