See this is how people are fined
Definitely file a complaint against them. Hope they get fined minimum 60000 per head.
Do you really? Why? In what way does that add anything to the sum total of human happiness? Do you really think that wishing pain on others brings you some good karma?
They have not broken any law, nor have they done anything to harm anybody. What difference does it make if they eat in this building or that building? Since when did the DOH have its own judiciary and courts, independent of the DOJ, endowed with the power to make summary judgments according to whim and to hand out fines comparable to those for drunk-driving? This is a very dangerous road for any society to start down.
Exactly as in other countries that did this sort of thing, the Level 3 ārulesā are merely ā¦ rules. If these guys had broken a law, they would have recourse to the courts instead of being railroaded through a shadow justice system. Itās a pity there are no lawyers coming forward to get unlawful fines quashed, as (fortunately) happened in the UK.
The gubmint is making a rod for its own back here, IMO. Undermining the Law engenders disrespect for the institutions of Law.
7 Likes
Thats very foolish. The fines are set by the government not me. Theyāre set for deterrence value. Your thoughts are [DELETED BY MOD]
That wasnāt my point. Your post expressed clear enjoyment of the idea that these people are going to suffer.
2 Likes
no it did not. [DELETED BY MODā¦ NO PERSONAL ATTACKS IN THIS FORM, PLEASE]
So although you agree that harming innocent people is bad, you still hope they get fined a punitive sum. OK.
This whole episode is a wonderful example of how easy it is to make normal people support horrible things.
7 Likes
You do realize that the fines are authorized under the Communicable Disease Control Act, right?
https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0050001
I think itās shitty that the NIA is apparently going around specifically looking for migrant workers who are violating the rules. At the same time, I find it hard to believe these people were ignorant of the rules.
Bottom line, this is the way TW operates and itās not new to epidemic controls. As expats, we have the ability to vote with our feet.
Thatās what the drones in uniform believe, but I suspect theyāre wrong, and it suits the govāt not to correct them: this is not unlike the situation in Miaoli, where nobody really knows or cares if the treatment of foreign workers is either legal or justified. The UK made a law similar to Taiwanās CDCA, and every conviction made under it has so far been ruled invalid by the courts:
The problem is that the CDCA (rather like the UK Coronavirus Act) is so broadly written that itās completely useless as a guide to action - either for the public or for the authorities. There is nothing in there (that I can see) that authorizes anybody to hand out enormous fines to people having dinner with their friends, whatever the location. And in any case, there are all sorts of reasons why you canāt just grant random people in uniform the power to convict and punish citizens at whim. I could be wrong, but Iām fairly sure there is no legal basis for granting other branches of government powers that are normally the remit of the DOJ.
Fixed-penalty notices are normally used under very, very limited circumstances (eg., speeding) where the legal complexity of proving guilt is trivial. This is not the case when youāre trying to convict someone of having an illegal meal (whatever the hell that even is - I never imagined using that phrase in reference to any country other than North Korea).
In this particular instance I donāt think these guys were ignorant of the rules: their justification sounds valid to me (it appears they are friends of the resto owner, the business is shut down, and they just happen to be eating their meal on the resto premises). In that event the officials may have overstepped the boundaries.
Anyway, the mods have asked that this sort of conversation be taken elsewhere. If you want to continue with it we can either start another thread or perhaps go to the general/open thread. Mods, perhaps you can move this at your discretion.
2 Likes
Did you even read it? Thereās a whole section on fines and what authorities have the right to levy them under what circumstances.
I donāt know why this is so difficult for you. The government has enacted a rule that says, among other things, that gatherings of 5 people are currently prohibited. How is such a rule āso broadly written that itās completely useless as a guide to actionā?
NIA agents found 5 people violating this rule and theyāre being fined accordingly.
This is the law in TW. If you donāt like the law, or the way laws are enforced in TW, you can vote with your feet.
Why? Per your other comments, on what basis does the government of TW have the right to force people who arenāt known to have the virus to quarantine?
Personally when I disagree with laws, I vote with my actions. At this point, chasing quarantine people is as effective as closing the barn door after the horses bolted. When Taiwan was virus free Iād of said to throw the book at them, now itās just theatre.
1 Like
The rules for quarantine after arrival are still incredibly important because of the variants. The last thing TW needs at this point is the Delta variant.
Quarantine has some scientifically-valid justification given the particular characteristics of the covid virus (albeit very limited justification now, as dan2006 said). Iām suggesting that they might want to stay indoors (a) to avoid retribution from their neighbours and (b) as a matter of courtesy.
Do you really want to get into an excruciatingly technical discussion of why the 5-persons rule is not just pointless, but legally meaningless? In any case, my original comment was in response to a comment which appeared to celebrate people being harmed for no good reason. If you want to quietly go along with whatever the government says, thatās understandable, but if this is going to become a community where people actively encourage and relish official misdeeds, itās going to become pretty toxic in here.
Most of us come from countries where rule of law is held in high regard, and where empathy is considered an important social good. Letās not let the sun go down on those hard-won human achievements.
2 Likes
I come from Murica, land of the free and home of the brave, and Iām not losing any sleep over Taiwanās rules.
When in Romeā¦
2 Likes
Communicable Disease Control Act / å³ęē é²ę²»ę³
I recommend having a look at
- Art. 36,
- Art. 37 Par. 1 Subpar. 1 and 6,
- Art. 67 Par. 1 Subpar. 1,
- Art. 70 Par. 1 Subpar. 2 and 3, and
- Art. 71.
As for whether or not the restrictions on freedom of assembly violate Art. 14 of the Constitution in a manner that cannot be saved by Art. 23, I recommend talking to a lawyer.
Regardless of their compatibility with the constitution (which, as you said, will be something for the courts to determine), do you disagree that those sections that you quoted are so vague as to be completely meaningless? That is, they have no value for determining whether the Act has been infringed in any particular case?
My reading of the Act is that it says ācompetent authoritiesā may do absolutely anything they like, with any justification they see fit to pull out of a hat, without any need to precisely define what the rules are, and punish people if (in their unilateral opinion) they havenāt complied. They can do this even if their rules are inconsistent with existing laws, precedent, or common decency (e.g., the right to eat a meal). That strikes me as a really, really bad law (in the technical sense - Iām sure there will be lots of opinions on its moral basis).
The Act itself is not the end of the story. The competent authority needs to issue a regulation, order, standard, or what have you, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act (and any subsidiary regulations such as the Enforcement Rules) and also in accordance with the separate rules for its own functioning. So to determine whether or not a specific order etc. has merit, you need to look at a lot more than just a particular subparagraph of the Act.
As for precedent, this is not a common law jurisdiction, so you canāt rely on it.
And what about the restaurant owner? No mention of them getting a fine. No mention of them all. Taiwan News, youāve done it again.