Today, (March 30) Legislative Yuan’s Internal Administration, Finance, and Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committees held their second joint meeting to discuss the Improper Party Assets Bill. Many legislators signed up to speak. Kolas Yotaka pointed out sixty-six examples of indigenous land that were eventually sold to Chinese National Party (KMT) and asked Ministry of the Interior to explain how these properties, which should have been indigenous land, ended up being part of KMT’s assets. Kolas clearly stated, “Indigenous land cannot, at any time, belong to any political party.
In 1986, there is a piece of land in Dawu Township of Taitung County that was bizarrely registered as “gifted.” In other words, this property was not registered to anyone was somehow given to the KMT. Kolas asked officials from the Ministry of the Interior, who had the power to “gift” indigenous land to KMT. Minster of the Interior, Chen Wei-zen (陳威仁), replied that he did not know, causing laughter in the audience. Kolas kept pressing that if the minister did not even know the circumstances surrounding the transfer of land rights and how it became a service station for the KMT, then this is an ill-gotten party asset.
In Nanzhuang Township, Miaoli, there is another piece of property that used “exhortation registration” that then was transferred to KMT. Kolas asked under whose authority was the land given to the Republic of China which then sold the land to KMT. She also asked the ministry to look up the original registration and truthfully tell the people of Taiwan. In 1982, in Tainan’s Beinan Township, a piece of land was “inherited” by the KMT. Kolas asked Chen Wei-zen the legal definition of inheritance. He replied that inheritance is a civil law. But KMT, a legal entity, is not eligible to inherit any properties. The officials from the ministry suggested that perhaps the property was a “legacy” left for the KMT but was registered wrongfully. Kolas criticized that “inheritance” and “legacy” have very different definitions and asked the officials not to blur what is right and wrong.
During this interpellation, Kolas also brought up ten reserved indigenous lands that were rented to KMT. The Chinese Nationalist Party built buildings upon these lands. Kolas pointed out that in 2006, Executive Yuan’s councilor Hsu Chih-hsiung (許志雄) had invited relevant organizations to discuss the issue of recovering improper properties gained by political parties at a conference. As a resolution, the conference concluded that the when the leases of the KMT rentals have expired, the indigenous land have to be returned to the people and the rentals can no longer be leased. Kolas asked why these ten properties are still being rented to KMT today. Officials indicated that the legislator should ask China Youth Corps. Kolas was dissatisfied with this answer saying that this is shirking responsibility. Kolas repeatedly emphasized that indigenous land cannot be owned by any political party and asked the ministry to quickly provide the historical documents and bravely face the past.
Kolas asked that the version of the Bill that will pass in the Legislative Yuan to include a commission to investigate Political Party Assets that must include indigenous members. She also asked the Council of Indigenous Peoples to toughen up and reclaim previously taken land. Kolas will continue to investigate until KMT returns all the ill-gotten land to its rightful owners—including the Indigenous Peoples of Taiwan.