Kenting’s coastal closure: when entry itself can lead to a fine

Could the Irish visitor stopped on Kenting’s coast face a fine without first refusing an officer’s order to leave? Focus Taiwan reported on October 23 that coastguards had stopped a visitor in a restricted coastal area during Typhoon Champi and would refer the case to Pingtung County authorities. The report described a possible penalty. It did not report a final fine.

The restriction belongs to a defined area

Article 30 of the Disaster Prevention and Protection Act gives an emergency operations center commander powers within the center’s response area after the center has been established. Acting through the designated executing agency, the commander may designate warning areas, issue temporary passes, restrict or prohibit entry, and order people to leave.

The measure must also be announced. Article 30 permits publication through an official gazette, a newspaper, a telecommunications network or another means sufficient to inform the public; the same announcement requirement applies when the measure is changed or withdrawn. A physical sign at every approach is not the only method recognized by the statute.

A forecast alone does not define the boundary. The practical legal questions concern the government order: which stretch of coast it covers, when the restriction operates and what conduct it prohibits. A nearby open road or an apparently accessible path does not answer those questions. The exact location matters.

Entry and refusal to leave are separate grounds

Article 55, subparagraph 2, provides an administrative fine of NT$50,000 to NT$250,000 for entering an Article 30 warning area without a temporary pass, or for failing to obey an order to leave. These are alternative grounds. The first does not require the authorities to prove that a person was personally told to leave and then refused.

That does not make every coastal encounter an automatic fine. The authority still needs to establish the applicable restriction and the conduct covered by it. A report prepared by coastguards and sent to the county is a step in that process, rather than a final penalty decision. The October 23 account does not establish the eventual amount or outcome for the Irish visitor.

Language difficulties do not settle liability

Intent and negligence matter. Under Article 7 of the Administrative Penalty Act, an administrative violation is not punishable if it was neither intentional nor negligent. How the restriction was communicated, where the person entered and what information was available may therefore be relevant to assessing the individual facts.

Ignorance of the law has a separate rule. Article 8 says that it is not itself an excuse, while allowing a penalty to be reduced or waived according to the circumstances. Foreign nationality supplies no automatic exemption. Nor does a claim that a visitor could not read a notice determine the result on its own.

For someone responding to a referral like the one reported in Kenting, a dated county announcement and a precise record of the entry point are more useful than a general description of bad weather. They connect the restriction to the place and time in question. Whether a personal order was given remains relevant to an allegation of refusing to leave, but it cannot replace the separate examination of unauthorized entry.

Illustrative image of a fictional coastal path; it does not depict the Kenting incident or its location.

Sources

• Focus Taiwan, October 23: tourists who entered areas closed due to typhoon face fines
• Disaster Prevention and Protection Act, Article 30
• Disaster Prevention and Protection Act, Article 55
• Administrative Penalty Act, Article 7
• Administrative Penalty Act, Article 8

General information on Taiwan law, checked October 25, 2026. An individual penalty depends on the applicable order and the facts.