Taiwan incorporated the two UN Human Rights Covenants into its domestic law. Yet, they were both consistently violated in the Tai Ji Men case.
by María Vardé*
*A paper presented at the webinar “The UN, the Two Covenants, and the Tai Ji Men Case,” co-organized by CESNUR and Human Rights Without Frontiers on October 24, 2024, on the United Nations Day.
An article already published in Bitter Winter on October 30th, 2024.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, aiming to promote universal respect for these rights and fundamental freedoms. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expand on the principles of the Universal Declaration. Together, these covenants form the International Bill of Human Rights, setting comprehensive standards for the protection and promotion of human rights for all peoples and nations, emphasizing the importance of justice and peace in the world.
Although Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations, it has voluntarily adopted the two covenants as part of its domestic legislation, committing to uphold these standards. This adherence demonstrates Taiwan’s dedication to protecting the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of its citizens. However, the implementation and enforcement of these rights remain critical to ensuring that Taiwan’s commitments translate into tangible protections for its people. In this context, a brief review of the Tai Ji Men case highlights the challenges Taiwan faces in fully realizing these duties.
Tai Ji Men, a Qigong and martial arts academy, has been embroiled in legal and administrative battles since 1996. During a politically motivated crackdown on religious and spiritual groups in Taiwan, Prosecutor Hou Kuan-Jen fabricated a case of tax evasion and fraud against them. After years of struggle, in 2007, all facts were cleared up, and Taiwan’s Supreme Court established that Tai Ji Men was not a cram school, as Hou Kuan-Jen falsely claimed, but a martial arts and Qigong academy. This meant that all monetary contributions given by Tai Ji Men disciples (dizi) to their Shifu (Grand Master), Dr. Hong Tao-Tze, were gifts, qualifying them as tax-exempt income under Article 4, Item 17 of the Income Tax Act.
The Supreme Court was not the last to speak in favor of Tai Ji Men. In 2002, the Control Yuan, the state branch responsible for evaluating other branches to ensure they work correctly, elaborated a report on the case. The report outlined seven major legal violations related to Prosecutor Hou’s activities that led to the National Taxation Bureau’s issuance of the tax bills, which were based on the prosecutor’s indictment without conducting an independent investigation, violating due legal process.
In Judgment 422 of 2018, the Supreme Administrative Court evaluated new evidence, confirmed that Tai Ji Men had always been a Qigong academy since its establishment in 1966, and was as a consequence tax-exempt. Consequently, the Court instructed the National Taxation Bureau to reevaluate and recalculate the taxes based on this criterion: Tai Ji Men should be recognized as a non-profit organization where the goods given to the Master by the disciples were, and always had been, respectful offerings, in line with an ancient tradition, and tax-exempt. However, a bill was still maintained by the National Taxation Bureau for the year 1992, based on the technical argument that the decision for the year 1992, which had been litigated separately from other years, rendered against Tai Ji Men had become final and was not subject to further appeals.
In 2019, the Taipei High Administrative Court twice sent letters to the National Taxation Bureau of the Central Area, requesting them to reexamine the tax bill for 1992 based on the same standard for the other years under scrutiny and then withdraw the enforcement. The court cited the Supreme Administrative Court’s 2018 Judgment No. 422, which recognized Tai Ji Men as a Qigong and martial arts organization.
Despite the resounding rulings and opinions of the highest courts and government bodies, the National Taxation Bureau continued imputing a tax debt for the year 1992, and in 2020, confiscated and nationalized land of inestimable spiritual value for Tai Ji Men. These events represent a serious lack of respect for the judicial system and due process, demonstrating that, despite its democratic structure, Taiwan has profound internal issues to resolve.
The misuse of tax laws to arbitrarily target groups within the civilian population based on imposed labels without proper investigation is, in itself, a violation of several human rights. As stated in previous webinars, similar issues are occurring in Argentina, where the anti-trafficking law is being manipulated through stigmatizing labels imposed on minority religious organizations, such as the Buenos Aires Yoga School and the evangelical NGO REMAR, to criminalize and attack them without concrete grounds. In this way, it is argued that donations of goods and money, as well as voluntary work for spiritual purposes, should be understood as exploitation and trafficking.
The misuse of legal frameworks against religious minorities in Argentina and the Tai Ji Men case in Taiwan both relate to the principles and protections outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 18 guarantees that everyone has the right to freedom of religion or belief, without interference or discrimination. The targeting of religious minorities in Argentina and Tai Ji Men in Taiwan under the guise of legal actions directly contravenes this right. Article 14 ensures the right to a fair trial; in both cases, the misuse of laws and prolonged legal battles, as seen in the Tai Ji Men case where tax authorities continued to pursue claims despite court rulings, show that this right is not being respected. Article 9 protects against arbitrary arrest and detention; but the arbitrary use of legal frameworks to detain or harass members of religious groups, as seen in both cases, violates this article.
Similarly, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is also being violated. Article 15 guarantees the right of everyone to take part in cultural life. The suppression of spiritual minorities’ activities through legal harassment and, as in the Tai Ji Men case, the confiscation of property, undermines their ability to engage in their cultural and spiritual practices, violating their right to engage in cultural life freely. Articles 6 and 7 protect the right to work and to just and favorable conditions of work. The legal actions against Tai Ji Men have disrupted their operations and affected the livelihoods of those involved in the organization, as it happened in Argentina’s cases. This is an infringement on their economic rights and their right to work under just conditions.
The primary function of democratic states is to ensure order and security for their citizens. It is in this spirit that democratic states adhere to various treaties to defend human rights. The essence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and consequently every specific covenant derived from it, is the recognition and affirmation that every individual matters, that all individuals are equally human and should be treated equally under the law. If the incorporation of the two covenants into its domestic law means that Taiwan is committed to protecting the human rights of its citizens equally, this should include protecting Tai Ji Men from unjust actions and ensuring their rights to a fair trial, property, and religious freedom are respected.