|
Clearly, the terminology of "Taiwan governing authorities" was created under US law by the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979. Therefore, it is the responsibility of US officials to provide the necessary oversight and supervision in enforcing the use of this terminology in the dealings between all organizations, public and private, and all individuals, in the USA and Taiwan.
|
Does the content of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) serve to authorize the establishment of a ROC Ministry of National Defense in Taiwan and its implementation of mandatory military conscription policies over the local populace? Based on a quick reading, it appears that the TRA does not recognize the nomenclature of "Republic of China" after Jan. 1, 1979. Or is such an interpretation in error?
The TRA uses the terminology of governing authorities on Taiwan, or simply "Taiwan governing authorities." But, in fact, is this terminology of "Taiwan governing authorities" just a euphemism or some kind of alternative nomenclature or substitute nomenclature for "Republic of China"?
To answer this question, let’s look at the situation of a young Taiwan male who receives a military conscription notice. Let’s imagine that for various personal reasons, he does not want to serve in the military, hence he refuses to be drafted.
Our question: Will he be considered in violation of the criminal code and military service system laws of the "Taiwan governing authorities?" The answer is "No," because there is no organization in Taiwan which operates under the title of "Taiwan governing authorities" and has any such laws.
However, this Taiwan male will be in violation of the criminal code and military service system laws of the Republic of China. He will be prosecuted as being in violation of the ROC criminal law if he refuses to serve in the ROC military.
Of course, many other examples could be given. Any Taiwan person who owns real estate and absolutely refuses to pay Taiwanese land and building taxes will also find himself/herself in an uncomfortable position. At some point, he/she may find that that the real estate is being seized by the government.
After the real estate is sold during an official government auction, the outstanding taxes will be deducted from the amount received.
Importantly, the land and building taxes in question are not being assessed under the authority of the "Taiwan governing authorities." Those taxes are assessed under the authority of the Republic of China, which has established a legal framework in Taiwan based on its own Constitution.
The "Republic of China" Constitution currently in use in Taiwan was promulgated on January 1, 1947, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) still ruled China. It came into force on December 25, 1947. It was brought over from Mainland China by the KMT during the Chinese Civil War period of the late 1940's. During this period of time, Taiwan was under military occupation, and had not been incorporated into China’s national territory.
In the Taiwan newspapers, reports are frequently given about local citizens who are complaining that the government has conducted many types of illegal activities in Taiwan in the past, and should now make full restitution. One common category of complaints concerns private land which was seized in previous decades, and for which compensation has never been paid. However, all lawsuits concerning these issues are conducted in the courts of the "Republic of China," because those are the only courts in existence in Taiwan.
Unfortunately, however, when dealing with such issues, the burden of documentary proof which the local Taiwan plaintiffs are asked to produce is often insurmountable. At the same time, the complications which the ROC judges can delve into and bring forward in investigating such lawsuits are seemingly endless. While some people might suppose that the handling of such lawsuits by the separately-constituted courts of the "Taiwan governing authorities" might be more fair and objective, in fact there are no such courts which could adjudicate such cases.
Hence, the idea that "Taiwan governing authorities" is actually some kind of alternative nomenclature or substitute nomenclature for "Republic of China" is incorrect. In Taiwan at present, in reality an organization calling itself "Taiwan governing authorities" has not yet been formed. Why is this? It is because the US officials are not following the spirit and the letter of the Taiwan Relations Act in their dealings with Taiwan. Clearly, the terminology of "Taiwan governing authorities" was created under US law by the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979. Therefore, it is the responsibility of US officials to provide the necessary oversight and supervision in enforcing the use of this terminology in the dealings between all organizations, public and private, and all individuals, in the USA and Taiwan. Are US officials doing this? That is an interesting question.
Here is one case study. In response to the COVID-19 epidemic, Vaccination Records began to be issued in Taiwan in 2021 for persons needing to travel overseas. The issuing agency for these Vaccination Records is "Centers for Disease Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of China (Taiwan)." When travelling internationally, such records are easily confused with those issued by the authorities in the People’s Republic of China. Most importantly, US government officials should be notifying their Taiwan counterparts in the Ministry of Health and Welfare that the wording of "Republic of China" should not appear on such records when being presented to United States agencies, organizations, etc. as proof of vaccinations received. Have US government officials done this? The answer is No, thus clearly indicating that these US government officials are not adhering to the Taiwan Relations Act.
