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
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS