No. There was no such thing. The roc occupation regime actually stole his land left right after his death. My father emphasized to me many times that their lands were stolen by the governments, and he remembered spending the majority of his childhood with his mother at the courthouse, to no avail.
It’s the same regime that deliberately committed 228 massacre and white terror, and the same regime that the Chinese people overthrew.
I’m not surprised. Who is anyway.
But thanks for asking.The more important point I raise is, under ROC’s law, it is okay for the authority to confiscate private lands without prior consultations. (We’re not talking about the bare minimum- consultations). This has to change.
It’s more glorious that the DPP would nominate Tsai Pei-hui in the video as their party list legislator. Tsai isn’t even a DPP party member. She told presidential elect Tsai Ying-wen that she would not obey party directives that she doesn’t agree with and turned down the offer once. Tsai Ying-wen told her DPP needs more than just one voice, and invited her to be on the party list again, and Tsai Pei-hui accepted the second time.
Now TPH is bringing her years of focus on agriculture and protecting farmer’s interests into the Legislative Yuan. You can bet on her to have her own opinion about TPP as well. I hope she will change Taiwan’s current unjust land acquirement process, so tragedies like Da-pu will never happen again.
No. There was no such thing. The roc occupation regime actually stole his land left right after his death. My father emphasized to me many times that their lands were stolen by the governments, and he remembered spending the majority of his childhood with his mother at the courthouse, to no avail.
It’s the same regime that deliberately committed 228 massacre and white terror, and the same regime that the Chinese people overthrew.
I’m not surprised. Who is anyway.
But thanks for asking.The more important point I raise is, under ROC’s law, it is okay for the authority to confiscate private lands without prior consultations. (We’re not talking about the bare minimum- consultations). This has to change.[/quote]
Yes, in the US, it’s called Eminent Domain and was upheld by the US Supreme Court.
No. There was no such thing. The roc occupation regime actually stole his land left right after his death. My father emphasized to me many times that their lands were stolen by the governments, and he remembered spending the majority of his childhood with his mother at the courthouse, to no avail.
It’s the same regime that deliberately committed 228 massacre and white terror, and the same regime that the Chinese people overthrew.
I’m not surprised. Who is anyway.
But thanks for asking.The more important point I raise is, under ROC’s law, it is okay for the authority to confiscate private lands without prior consultations. (We’re not talking about the bare minimum- consultations). This has to change.[/quote]
Yes, in the US, it’s called Eminent Domain and was upheld by the US Supreme Court.[/quote]
No. Not without public hearings, consultation and just compensation.
[quote]“We are willing to be open and candid in dealing with the issue of party assets, and give them up to move forward, but today’s review is too targeted and vengeful,” KMT caucus whip Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆) said, adding that the hearing only sought to summon KMT party representatives for questioning.
All major parties that have received government subsidies over the past 10 years should be required to fully disclose financial records and accept questioning at the Legislative Yuan, he said, condemning the legislation sponsored by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators for only applying to the KMT.
[…]
DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) brushed off KMT claims that it was willing to divest itself of “illicit assets.”
“The KMT’s actions and words are at odds,” Ker said. “The KMT says it is not opposed [to taking care of illicit assets], but you know it is the minute you look at its proposed legislation. It is written very clearly: No satellite organizations are to be pursued, and any controversy is to go to the Control Yuan, which they control.”
[/quote]
Trying to stimulate discussion without taking sides, I note that the President of the Control Yuan is a member of the Non-Partisan Solidarity Union and thus not subject to KMT control, though the Union’s association with the Pan-Blue Coalition (and the fact that President Chang was appointed during the KMT’s watch, whereas the position was vacant from 2005 to 2008 due to the blue-green legislative-executive deadlock) may cause people to be skeptical about this. My question is, what exactly does the DPP intend to do about it?
Chang was appointed in 2014. Article 7 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution (2005) maintains the 6 year term of all members of the CY, and though it adds a provision for impeachment of CY personnel, the CY itself has jurisdiction. In other words, the watchers are expected to watch themselves.
That principle of self control is potentially complicated by Par. 6 of Art. 7:
Which revokes these:
[quote]No Member of the Control Yuan shall be held responsible outside the Yuan for opinions expressed or votes cast in the Yuan.
No Member of the Control Yuan shall, except in case of flagrante delicto, be arrested or detained without the permission of the Control Yuan.[/quote]
In other words, they can only be impeached by their colleagues, but the police can arrest them anyway if they have (or appear to have) scandals of their own and/or fall foul of the defamation provisions of the Criminal Code by criticizing the police or members of other Yuans (beyond the scope of what is legally permitted). So should we expect to hear of CY scandals soon, or will the changing of these particular guards wait until 2020? And if there’s a standoff with CY members being arrested but not impeached, who stands to lose the most credibility?
For anyone who’s interested in the technical details, here is Par. 4 of the aforementioned Art. 7:
The preceding paragraph:
Articles 95 and 97 Par. 2 of the 1947 Constitution:
[quote]The Control Yuan may, in the exercise of its powers of control, request the Executive Yuan and its Ministries and Commissions to submit to it for perusal the original orders issued by them and all other relevant documents.
When the Control Yuan deems a public functionary in the Central Government or in a local government guilty of neglect of duty or violation of law, it may propose corrective measures or institute an impeachment. If it involves a criminal offense, the case shall be turned over to a law court.[/quote]
So unless I’ve missed something, what it takes to impeach a member is a proposal by at least two members and a decision by a simple majority (?) of a committee of at least nine members. (The CY has twenty-nine members, including the President and Vice President.) An alternative to impeachment is “corrective measures”, whatever those are, and the CY can also transfer its internal cases to the JY.
Politically speaking, it seems like a mistake for the DPP to push so many transitional justice proposals at this time. Party assets I can get behind, but the SYS stuff seems like it could wait. Not that I don’t understand the sentiment but the prioritization seems questionable.
Can you help me better understand what “holistic” means in this context? The party assets issue seems clearly in the realm of justice and fairness to me. Likewise, educational reform such that Taiwanese schools teach about Taiwan as Taiwan, and not a Chinese appendage. The SYS stuff, though, seems to be about symbolism - and there are plenty or uglier symbols like the Grate Leeder which I think are far more offensive.[/quote]
A holistic approach would entail dismentalling every bit of the fascist machinery that KMT meticulously designed to persecuted the native Taiwanese popuation. In particular, dismentalling SYS would also server as a strong WARNING to current and future Chinese generations who contemplate on subjugating Taiwnese.
Justice is about sending the right message – Don’t even think about it.
There’s been a lot of discussion on this thread about the “stolen assets,” and I’ve always been curious about how much money the DPP actually expects to recover from the KMT. I’ve long assumed that the actual amount that could be recovered will prove to be a lot less than what was originally stolen, for the simple reason that ample time has passed to move assets around and hide them.
An article in today’s Taipei Times seems to provide a credible figure. And if they are right, I’m afraid that those of you who were expecting to balance the national budget this way are going to be disappointed:
If the amount of KMT assets that can be recovered is the low figure of NT$1 billion, then with a population of 23 million each Taiwanese citizen can hope to enjoy a grand payout of slightly over NT$43. That will buy you a 7-Eleven hot dog (without the bun) and a small drink. If the high-end figure of NT$6.6 billion proves to be recoverable, every citizen on this island can look forward to receiving NT$287, more than enough to purchase one of these at Dominos Pizza (at least while their special offer lasts):
In short, those of you who possess an ROC ID card and were hoping to live off the proceeds of the stolen assets might be wise not to quit your day job just yet.
Actually, a KMT higher up said that it was the Taiwanese that should give back the money the KMT gave the island and then they could go back to the Mainland. Seriously. That tells you what the possibility of seeing a cent of the assets is.
The talk shows had a field week, listing all the assets sales before the handover. I mean, they showed newspaper ads of the blues party buildings and holdings already in the market. The countdown is on, but a lot of money is made… and hidden. Taxes my foot. Problem is that there is a lot of infighting in the party for the scraps, not to mention the juicy steaks.
The other day, the now confirmed new President of the Examination Yuan said he agreed with the proposal to abolish it but will do his duty until that happens (if it happens, which depends how a referendum would go).
While the normal term for an Examination Yuan member is six years, Lee and Chen’s terms are to end in August 2020, as they are serving out the terms left by former Examination Yuan vice president Kao Yuang-kuang (高永光) and member Pasuya Poitsonu (浦忠成), who resigned respectively in December last year and last month after the change of administration.
