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
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