In theory, everybody is in favor of peace. However, peace is impossible if injustices such as the one vested on Tai Ji Men in Taiwan are not rectified.
by Willy Fautré*
*A paper presented at the webinar “No Peace Without Real Justice for Tai Ji Men,” co-organized by CESNUR and Human Rights Without Frontiers on 20 September 2024, on the eve of the UN International Day of Peace.
An article already published in Bitter Winter on September 23rd, 2024.
The International Day of Peace was established in 1981 by the UN General Assembly. Twenty years later, in 2001, the General Assembly decided, by unanimous vote, that the 21st of September would be the UN International Day of Peace.
Throughout history, the concept of peace has often been pursued as the ultimate goal for societies fractured by internal conflicts, oppression, and injustice. However, achieving true, lasting peace goes beyond the mere cessation of domestic disorder, violence, or armed fightings. A profound and enduring peace is inherently tied to the pursuit of justice at home.
Concerning Tai Ji Men’s pursuit of justice, we all know that in their case injustice had started with Prosecutor Hou Kuan-Jen who illegally abused his power to impose discriminatory and unjustified tax bills on the movement on the basis of fallacious reasons. He forged false evidence and the NTB continued to issue unjustifiable tax bills. This was done for several years: 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. This was the beginning of the ordeal of Tai Ji Men.
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that Tai Ji Men had never been guilty of any tax evasion nor other crimes. This meant that the tax bills were unfounded and illegal. The conclusion should have meant the end of the prosecution but it was not the case. How to explain such a denial of justice?
After the Supreme Court decision in 2007, the NTB went on trying to maintain the tax bills but eventually, after protracted litigation, it had to correct to zero all of them except the one for the year 1992. Why? In fact, the tax bills had been the subject matter of separate litigations. For the year 1992, the Supreme Administrative Court had rendered in 2006 a decision against Tai Ji Men that was technically final. It could therefore not be appealed any more or dismissed by any further court decision.
In this case, however, the law was obviously intentionally misused by Prosecutor Hou and the NTB to destroy the activities and reputation of Tai Ji Men. This persistent abuse of power and injustice had started in the aftermath of a dictatorial regime because the democratization and the lustration process had not been fully developed and implemented. At that time, in the 1990s, the lack of accountability still persisted in the minds of people in leadership positions because there had been no purification of society, no significant prosecution of political leaders and their minions for crimes committed against their own people, crimes against humanity.
During what should have been a period of transitional justice, a period of healing of the wounds attributable to decades of dictatorship, the justice machinery had not been sufficiently cleansed and made operational.
Laws can be changed very quickly if there is a political consensus but the implementation of democratic laws needs time to become effective and it can even take one or two generations to change the minds of the people.
The denazification of Germany, defeated at the end of the Second World War, could take place under the umbrella and even “the yoke” of democratic foreign occupation forces but destalinization could never be implemented by the Russian people alone, despite its efforts, after the internal collapse of the Soviet Union because the minds of the people in power positions had remained totalitarian. The contrasting outcome was a democratic Germany and a dictatorial warmongering Russia crushing its population and threatening the whole of Europe.
National and international justice is vital for peace at home and in the world and peace cannot thrive in the absence of fairness, accountability, and the equitable treatment of all segments of society.
It must also be kept in mind that any peace achieved is fragile and temporary and should therefore be cherished and be taken care of.
The last peaceful legal battle of Tai Ji Men for justice
There is no war between Tai Ji Men and the Taiwanese State but there is no peace either. Real peace through justice is the compass of Tai Ji Men.
There was recently a last opportunity and hope to solve the conflict between Tai Ji Men and Taiwan’s National Taxation Bureau (NTB) which had erroneously but stubbornly maintained a tax bill on them for the year 1992.
This year, the Taichung High Administrative Court had the opportunity to save the face of Taiwan and solve the case when Tai Ji Men asked for a tax refund in accordance with Article 28 of the Tax Collection Act.
Unfortunately, the Taichung judges ruled once again on the basis of the 2006 decision declared technically final and rejected the demand of Tai ji Men.
They added insult to injury by suggesting that the tax bill for 1992 might have been based on different grounds than those for the other years. This was a false argument in contradiction with the NTB itself, which had recognized 14 years ago that the tax bills for all years from 1991 to 1996 were based on the same underlying facts.
Due to the culture of self- and mutual protection inside the administrative and justice system, it seems that only a political decision in Taipei can solve the unresolved case of Tai Ji Men, which worriedly tarnishes the image of the country abroad.
Such a move, which has never taken place since the 1990s will however only be possible through the pressure of an international coalition of friends of Taiwan. The final decision of the Supreme Court on 13 July 2007 confirming that Dr. Hong and his co-defendants were innocent of all charges, including tax evasion, was a moral victory but not a full real victory as it was never fully implemented as an act of justice.
Tai Ji Men is a peaceful movement and the dizi are absolutely non-violent but this bad example of persisting injustice could convince other, different social groups at odds with the government in Taiwan that there is no other way than violence to solve their problems—with a state that misuses the law and the justice system to serve injustice.