Three “lingering poisons of authoritarianism” prevent the full implementation of transitional justice in Taiwan.
by Tsai Cheng-An*
*A paper presented at the 2024 conference of the East Asian Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Reitaku University, Chiba, Japan, July 6, 2024.


Transitional justice is the set of legal remedies implemented after a transition from a non-democratic to a democratic regime to redress past human rights violations, indemnify the victims, and punish the perpetrators. Human rights violations also include denial of freedom of religion or belief. My paper examines the successes and failures of transitional justice in post-authoritarian Taiwan, particularly from the angle of religious liberty.
During its political transition, Taiwan passed the Implementation Act of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 2009, incorporating the provisions of these two covenants into its domestic legal system. This demonstrates the Taiwanese government’s commitment to respecting and protecting human rights and its willingness to fulfill international human rights obligations, thereby advancing Taiwan’s human rights protection to international standards.
Transitional justice, as the practice of human rights principles, has been vigorously promoted by the United Nations for many years. However, when the Taiwanese government passed the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice in 2017, it limited the timeframe to the period of Kuomintang ruling from 1945 to 1992, excluding consideration of post-authoritarian human rights violations that occurred after 1992. Such a limitation may result in the exclusion of justice and redress for certain victims, representing a “timeframe limitation on transitional justice” that does not align with the moral and conscience principles of redressing human rights violations.


The principle of conscience is a universal value that enables humans to make correct judgments about good and bad, right and wrong, true and false. It reflects individual inner value judgments and is one of humanity’s common moral concepts. It guides individuals to seek goodness and justice in moral dilemmas and to make the right decisions. It embodies universal respect for justice, truth, and morality, providing an important foundation and guidance for the rule of law. In a democratic society, laws should reflect the collective conscience and values of the people, providing fair and reasonable standards for society. The universal value of the principle of conscience is tested in Taiwan’s transitional justice debates, highlighting how to restore justice for citizens who suffered human rights violations during the authoritarian and post-authoritarian periods of the 20th century.
According to the principle of conscience, when new evidence emerges in transitional justice, this evidence should not be subject to the limitations of existing legal time constraints. This is because the core goal of transitional justice is to reveal the truth about past injustices and human rights violations and to seek justice, reconciliation, compensation, and accountability. If new evidence is discovered but subjected to time constraints, it will prevent the proper investigation and compensation for past injustices, violating the pursuit of justice and truth represented by the principle of conscience.
Although Taiwan’s political transition has undergone key events such as democratization and party alternation, the “timeframe limitation on transitional justice” and the “timelines limitation on new evidence” are two lingering poisons of authoritarianism. These limitations exclude the protection of human rights during the post-1992 authoritarian period, leaving Taiwan’s democracy and human rights in 2024 still not fully aligned with the legislative intent of the Implementation Act of the Two Covenants, nor fulfilling international standards for human rights protection.


Another disturbing lingering poison of authoritarianism in Taiwan is the “perpetual tax bill” in its tax system. Under this system, once tax authorities issue a tax bill, they can disregard any legal victories by the taxpayers and reissue tax bills until the taxpayers’ legal remedies are exhausted, and they are forced to pay the taxes or have their property seized. On May 4, 2022, Taiwan’s Control Yuan released an investigation report on the “perpetual tax bill,” noting it violated Article 16 of the Constitution, which protects the people’s right to litigation, and failed to provide “timely and effective” relief, thereby infringing on the people’s tax-related human rights.


Before the lifting of martial law in 1987, Taiwan’s political climate was markedly oppressive to human rights, extending this repression to social, cultural, and religious spheres through the suppression of social movements. During the martial law period, party and government forces deeply infiltrated religious sectors, strictly limiting religious freedom, which made it impossible to implement the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Any religious group that held a different political stance from the government faced oppression, such as Yiguandao, the New Testament Church (in the Zion Hill incident), and the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, all of which suffered political persecution. It was not until 1987, under the concern of the U.S. government, that the New Testament Church was allowed to return to Zion Hill. Yiguandao was labeled a “cult” and was banned from establishing missionary work for 30 years until it was legalized on the eve of the lifting of martial law in 1987.
On July 15, 1987, Taiwan’s authoritarian government lifted the Martial Law Act, marking the beginning of Taiwan’s gradual transition to a democratic system. In the early stages of this period, the executive power remained dominant, the judiciary was still controlled by the executive branch, and legislative authority was insufficient. At that time, the protection of human rights had not yet become a core value of government governance; instead, the culture of purging dissent within the authoritarian regime was still prevalent.
In 1996, Taiwan held its first direct presidential election, where the president was elected by the people. This was a crucial indicator of Taiwan’s entry into a democratic system. During the election process, some religious groups supported specific candidates, leading to significant disputes in Taiwan. After the election, groups that supported non-ruling-party candidates faced political retaliation. At the end of 1996, the ruling party government carried out political purges. Then Minister of Justice Liao Cheng-Hao actively launched a “religious crackdown” to purge dissent. This unprecedented “legal persecution” was ostensibly motivated by complaints of former believers through “black letters” but was actually manipulated by the ruling party, which guided media hype and then mobilized judicial investigations, tax inspections, asset seizures, and hefty penalties. This series of meticulously planned actions required the mobilization of many media outlets, judicial bodies, and tax authorities, cooperating in coordinated actions. It was impossible for a few ex-followers’ empty accusations to consecutively dominate headlines for three weeks. Among those targeted were Fo Guang Shan, Master Wei Chueh of Chung Tai Shan, Master Miao Tian, Tai Ji Men, and Song Qili.


The Tai Ji Men case, which involved serious violations of religious freedom in 1996, was resolved in 2007 when the criminal court finally confirmed their innocence, including that there were no tax arrears and no violations of tax collection laws. Money given by disciples to their master was constructed as non-taxable gifts, rejecting the prosecutor’s allegation that it was the tuition fee for a (non-existing) cram school. However, Tai Ji Men continued to be subjected to illegal tax enforcement by the National Taxation Bureau, and in 2020, their sacred land intended for a self-cultivation center was nationalized by the state.
The religious freedom and human rights of Tai Ji Men’s disciples are key aspects protected by Articles 4 and 18 of the ICCPR. The core goal of transitional justice is to reveal the truth of past injustices and human rights violations and to seek justice, reconciliation, and compensation. However, the lingering poison of authoritarianism’s “timeframe limitations on transitional justice” in Taiwan have eroded the opportunity to seek justice and reconciliation, leaving the Tai Ji Men human rights persecution case unresolved to this day.
Decision No. 422 of the Supreme Administrative Court in 2018 recognized the spiritual essence of Tai Ji Men as a qigong and martial arts menpai, and new facts and evidence indicate that the National Taxation Bureau itself has admitted that Tai Ji Men is not a cram school. When new evidence emerges, the government should take a proactive stance to ensure this evidence is thoroughly investigated and evaluated. Ignoring such evidence would mean a denial of justice, betraying the entire transitional justice initiative and its objectives. The “timeliness limitations on new evidence” under the lingering poison of authoritarianism remains an obstacle to full redress.
When Taiwan President Lai Ching-Te (then Vice President) attended the opening ceremony of the “2023 Taiwan International Religious Freedom Summit” (TIRF), he stated that Taiwan’s achievement of democracy, freedom, and openness after a dark era of authoritarianism was due to the courageous struggle of the people and international support. Therefore, Taiwan has a responsibility to give back to the international community, stand with religious leaders and democratic allies, and its current religious freedom has been internationally recognized. In the “Freedom in the World” report by Freedom House, Taiwan received a perfect score for religious freedom.


However, under the combined influence of the “timeframe limitations on transitional justice” and the “timeliness limitations on new evidence,” compounded by the “perpetual tax bill” system, the political and economic structure, still tainted by lingering poison of authoritarianism, hinders the correction of past mistakes. This has resulted in the failure to redress human rights cases involving religious freedom violations by Taiwan’s post-authoritarian government in 1996, failing to uphold the spirit of transitional justice and causing shortcomings in fulfilling international commitments to religious freedom and human rights.
I sincerely urge the Taiwanese government to recognize the existence of authoritarian lingering poison and their damage to the protection of religious freedom and human rights in Taiwan. The government should act according to the universal values of human rights protection and the principle of conscience and morality to eliminate these three lingering poisons of authoritarianism. This approach will enable Taiwan to fully implement transitional justice, address the Tai Ji Men human rights persecution case, and raise the international standard of religious freedom and human rights.