Human Rights Group to be formed

Legal Human Rights
1

I have been thinking of setting up some formally established Association under the Ministry of the Interior to deal with human rights issues for several years. However, frankly speaking I don’t have the personnel/manpower to run it.

However, my Taiwanese wife has been thinking of setting up an Association in connection with her agro-tourism consulting activities. (She is a consultant for the Council of Agriculture.)

Hence, we have hit upon the unusual idea of combining these two sets of motivations and ideas into one Association. That way the personnel chores will be greatly simplified, and there will be enough work to do to hire one or two secretaries at least.

What I want to get opinions on is b[/b] joining fee (JF) which is one time only, and b[/b] membership fee per year (MFpY). This is usually the way these Associations are organized in terms of soliciting members.

An additional issue of “founding member fees” could be discussed later.

OK . . . . . so here are five possibilities. (All figures in NT$) What do you consider reasonable?

  1. JF: 1000, MFpY: 1000
  2. JF: 2000, MFpY: 2000
  3. JF: 1000, MFpY: 2000
  4. JF: 2000, MFpY: 3000
  5. JF: 2000, MFpY: 4000

Well . . . . the question arises: What will the Association do in terms of the promotion of human rights in Taiwan?

I believe that we will concentrate on lobbying activities here and overseas. In terms of these overseas activities, I assume that initially we would (for example) come up with summaries of human rights abuses or “poor treatment” or “unequal treatment” in Taiwan which could be passed on to foreign government officials.

Obviously, collecting this type of information, editing it, getting it printed into booklets, etc. etc. is expensive. We would also ask the membership what human rights issues were of primary concern to them.

Specific case-related counseling or legal action would be undertaken on a separate basis, where the person involved would need to pay the appropriate fee. If you have ever had trouble finding an English speaking lawyer after you killed someone in an auto accident, then this Association would be able to give a referral. The Association would also want to meet with Taiwan government officials about the resolution of “contradictory regulations”, etc.

So . . . . based on this, please give me your feelings about the proper figures for the JF and the MFpY. Thanks.

2

[quote=“Hartzell”]I have been thinking of setting up some formally established Association under the Ministry of the Interior to deal with human rights issues for several years. However, frankly speaking I don’t have the personnel/manpower to run it.

However, my Taiwanese wife has been thinking of setting up an Association in connection with her agro-tourism consulting activities. (She is a consultant for the Council of Agriculture.)[/quote]

Harzell,

Now that Kennedy and his two sidekicks will be doing some human rights kung fu on that government committee, I’m more interested in this agro-tourism. Camping at the AVRDC? Details, please.

3

Re: your idea. Is such an association needed? And if it and personnel and financing is a problem, couldn’t you team up with groups like the Taiwan Association of Human Rights and Judicial Reform Foundation?

4

Those two groups have never been interested in any of my initiatives over the past eight years. I can’t imagine they would be interested now.

5

Those two groups have never been interested in any of my initiatives over the past eight years. I can’t imagine they would be interested now.[/quote]

Well, you never know until you try. Wouldn’t your association dilute the human rights movement? (I’m not criticizing, I’m asking.)

6

You don’t seem to have understood my previous posting. I have tried many times over the past eight years . . . . . .

No.

7

I’m interested,
How exactly can this group be unbiased if it is set up under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of China?

[quote]I have been thinking of setting up some formally established Association under the Ministry of the Interior to deal with human rights issues for several years. However, frankly speaking I don’t have the personnel/manpower to run it.
[/quote]
I understand that as a business it would add credibility but as a human rights advocate there may be a conflict of interest.

8

[quote=“Hartzell”]

No.[/quote]

Oh.

9

With any business, in the start up phase, cheaper is better. If you could set it up as a kind of insurance ie. you get into trouble and we help you at a discount because you are a member. That would appeal to a great number of people, particularly foreigners working here.
As it stands if someone wanted to be associated with a human rights advocate group, Amnesty International would be my first choice but there are many others. Protecting the environment, Greenpeace seems to have the corner on that market and their membership fees are pretty low. Plus it looks good on a resume.

10

Conceptually, you are creating the equivalency of a non-profit civil rights law firm (IRS 501©(3)) that is offering some form of prepaid retainer or legal insurance. Prepaid Legal, Inc was originated and really first started out as a nonprofit automobile club. Such was uniquely created with legal accident insurance for its membership. prepaidlegal.com/

Creating an agro-tourist travel service club for ecotourism in Nantou County, medicinal herbal spa tour packages in Hualien, the Chinese homeopathic referral services in Taipei and elsewhere, Chinese organic food promotions to hotels, and so on are more boiler plate for any Chinese cultural marketing to foreigners.

The Ying-Yang Travel Service Association? Stressed? Je-lagged? Is your Chinese qi out of whack? Then your qi legal advocate will get things back into stress-free environmental harmony. :unamused:

11

I am very interested in your idea Mr. Hartzell and would like to participate in any way possible.
Do you have a website yet?

12

Those two groups have never been interested in any of my initiatives over the past eight years. I can’t imagine they would be interested now.[/quote]

Okay, let me put it a different way. Why haven’t they been interested? Are the human rights you want to deal with different from the human rights that the JRF and other association in Taiwan want to deal with? Is it a personality clash?

13

Hi Richard,
The reason for my non-reply is that every time I make the mistake of getting involved with cyber chat forums, I always almost instantly regret it. I answer you here simply out of respect for your email today.

As to my thoughts on what I will call a Foreigners Human Rights Group here are the reasons I question such a things viability. And I will go from broad reasons to narrow reasons.

Taiwan does not now, nor will it anytime soon (anytime in my life time- I am 45) have anything which even comes close to a rule of law. Simply put, the Taiwanese do not structure their society around law. Which is fine, they have other ways of resolving disputes. And this place (which I have stopped calling a country, it is simply a place) is not run (I will not dignify it with the word governed) with a rule of law in mind.

Tying in with that is the fact that Taiwans statutory structure, at least as far as I have seen, is a confused, poorly drafted, vague, often contradictory hodgepodge. Often within one Act there will be direct contradictions within a few lines of each other. The image I use when telling tales about Taiwan to my California attorney friends is that Taiwan statutory scheme is like you took the rules of poker, checkers, and golf; slapped them together and said these are the rules to one game. In situations like this the law becomes a kind of Alice in Wonderland nonsense.

Foreigners need to keep the above facts in mind. Beyond the general confusion in the law, I have many, many times seen situations where the law is basically clear; but the snivel servant simply refuses to follow the law. They will cite policy, their specific office regulations or some other excuse. If you press them on it they will simply go into the sullen snivel servant stare face until you are pushed aside from the window by the polite local behind you. Unless you are going to put a gun to their little pointed heads there is no way to force them to chop your document. Pointing to the law is pointless.

The way this place is set up, the law means little or nothing. If you need something done you got to rely on connections or getting lucky. Guanxi rules, not the law. If you intend to live here for any length of time, and this is my stock advice, start to gather guanxi like a squirrel collects acorns. And my other bit of practical advice is to realize that this place is set up and operates fundamentally differently than any western society.

So pressing for legal changes is, in my analysis, a waste of time. Actually from the tone of this letter one might correctly infer that I think Taiwan is destined to be, as one local judge put it, a basket case. Or as I mentioned to one of my editors yesterday, Taiwan is already a backwater of Asia.

But let us say I am wrong and pressing for legal changes would make a difference. Miracles do happen after all. So what about a Foreigner Human Right group? My immediate question is; how would the new one be any different than the ones that have gone before. For example did not a guy named Chris Peck have a Foreign Spouses Group, what happened to it? If I understood correctly it fell victim to personal politics or perhaps we should say the politics of personality. Several people I have spoken with thought that Mr. Peck was an obnoxious dingbat and refused to deal with him. I myself never dealt with him, that I recall. And if memory serves there have been other short lived attempts to form similar groups.

The other problem you got is that the foreigner population in Taiwan is not very stable and the population has very different agenda and needs. An Indonesian maid, a Filipino guy working at a computer factory, an American living up in Tienmu making $200,000NT a month and an 18 year old Oz backpacker working for ELSI English school, do not really have the same demands, the same problems.

The other problem you got is any group will have to get linked up with AIT and or the European Trade Office Association. Those are the only two groups I have ever heard the MOJ or Judicial Yuan really pay any attention too other than international human rights groups like AI or corporate giants like Microsoft or General Electric.

The other problem you got is that the local agencies place foreigner problems on the bottom of the priority list. Which I can understand. Along with this is the fact that this island has (literally) hundreds of Mom and Pop human right organizations; usually run by two people, mom and pop. Forming a human rights NGO is a popular way to beat taxes and gain a little face and have something cool to put on your Big Face Business card. Well, the deal then becomes that government agencies dismiss these type of groups. And unfortunately, they would view this new Foreigner Human Rights group as just another Mom and Pop tax dodge.

Another problem you got is that 99% of the changes that I have seen made in Taiwan are really just empty shows. I could go on and on with the problems but my accountant says I should get paid to type.

Brian bottom line, I am not against it, but I am not going to devote much of my time or mental energy to it either. Do not form organizations, gather guanxi.

Take care,
Brian

14

Well, all I can say is that your comments are shocking!!!

But I will continue to strive for positive change!!! Onward and upward!!!

Human rights for one and all!!!

I believe we will call it the Kairos Association. That is a Greek word meaning that “good fate in personal relationships is at hand” . . . . . and that ties directly into Brian’s analysis!!!

15

Right, Richard, I am sure you were shocked out of your chair by the Brian “revelations” about Taiwan. Actually a lot of what I wrote I learned first from you many years ago. My work in the human rights and criminal justice areas simply confirmed what you had long ago told me.

You are a man of great faith, the eternal optimist; I will grant you that.

take care and God speed,
Brian

16

I nominate Richard as Presidente Honoraria of Taiwan, and Brian as his Vice President. These two, working in tandem, could really take this island places, as Dr Seuss said, Oh the places you can go!

My vote is cast. Do it, boys!

17

:smiley: Brian Kennedy has seen the light! :smiley:

So just what happens when one combines the rule of law with guanxi?

The Chinese do see rule of men as a leadership issue of virtue. Rule by favor is the result. But a rule of law is still rule by men. Men must rule by law and enforce that law. Perhaps it is rule by loophole rather than a rule by favor. But men of virtue, or enlightenment, must step in and still fill the role of leadership. The Taiwan establishment is too Chinese and it needs a human rights catalyst.

What would happen if Brian Kennedy, Richard Hartzell, and Linda Gail Arrigo were to become the leading voices of the “human rights trio”?

What if Congress were to start really listening to US citizens in Taiwan?

The Taiwan lobby applecart would be upset by these individual voices of liberal democracy, not of liberal corruption. :sunglasses:

18

If we never try we will never succeed. Failure will play a very big part in any human rights movement in Taiwan. It is through failure that we will learn how to succeed.
The human rights situation is not progressing or developing. The rule of law is a foreign concept that Taiwan must master if wants to compete in the new world order. If the Chinese in Hong Kong and Singapore can do it, so can Taiwan.

19

Boomer,
Note the difference between Taiwan and Hong Kong and Singapore. The latter two were under British rule for many, many years. Regardless of what one thinks of colonial rule, it does have its historical advantages.

Note too, the rapid erosion of the rule of law in Hong Kong since its handover to the Chinese.

One might draw a conclusion from all this, I would not dare to violate politcal correctness by doing so, but anyone with half a brain can see a (cough, cough) “pattern” emerge.

I do not see this pattern, but a cynical racist would:
British control=rule of law
Chinese (be they “Taiwanese” or “regular chinese”)=no rule of law, but corruption and connections being “the law”

take care,
Brian The Politically Correct Lawyer

20

Taiwan was a colony, of the Japanese. Many believe that Taiwan