On the revocation of first EAYG by EAOC 7/24, Taichung Mayor Lin Chia-lung talked to the media about the cancelation of East Asian Youth Games during EAOC Extraordinary Council Meeting that the trial was made while absence of defendant. Despite the affirmation on the venue and praising letters from EAOC afterwards on the efforts and contributions, there is yet an explicit explanation on the cancellation of the Games. Taichung felt disrespect as a party in the contract. On four grounds, Lin is to propose appeal according to signed document to protect the rights of the participating athletes by restoring the right to host the Games.

On EAOC’s nullification of Taichung’s right to host the Games, Mayor repeated his sorry and objection to the media on the ceremony for the beginning of reconstruction of west building of Tanzi Elementary School. Four grounds on the appeal to EAOC drawn up by Legislation Bureau under the lawyers and scholars’ assistance will put into discussion with Sports Administration and Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee today before submission.

Regarding the four reasons of appeal, Lin indicated that first, the decision of EAOC’s unanticipated nullification of East Asian Youth Games in Taichung has violated the principle of EAOC’s “promoting Olympic Games in East Asia”; second of all, the Extraordinary Council Meeting, held by EAOC, made the decision of cancelation of the Games without indicating Taichung Government of whatsoever violation, or non-execution of any part of the signed contract, or any conduct against EAOC Charter made by the party. During three years of preparation Taichung Government has properly followed all promises written in the contract and obeyed the regulation set out in EAOC Charter, as known to the public.

Third of all, as a party in signed contract, Taichung Government was not present during the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 7/24 nor given opportunity to state or respond regarding the movement. Fourth, in the official letter of cancelation of the Games sent by EAOC yesterday no specific reason was given to lead to the decision. The result of nullification without a cause is barbarous to all athletes of every participating nation.

Mayor Lin emphasized that, based on above points, City Government believed that the decision has violated Article 24 “Solve dispute peacefully.” of the contract signed by both parties. As a party in the contract, Taichung was treated with disrespect, and the procedure has violated the contract m City Government decide to make appeal.

“Politics should not interfere with sports. We will not let go any opportunity.” Lin appreciated the support and encouragement from the people, and will guard the participation right and the spirit of Olympics with every effort, through every channel. He stressed that, equal sports competition can exist between two countries at war, it surely will happen between cross-strait. Lin believes that “the spirit of Olympics is on our side.”

Mayor Lin added that in the past three years’ preparation, the progress and the quality were affirmed on every meeting. President Liu Peng of EAOC stated during the Extraordinary Council Meeting and in the letter the effort and contribution of Taichung without mocking of any kind or pointing any violation.

Therefore, City Government must make its voice to the world on the right to host the Games. It expects the Committee to nullify the decision after receiving the appeal and review the false decision.

On whether to start international lobbying after appeal proposed, Lin answered that once appeal is submitted, relevant departments shall begin communication. Although Japan stood the ground to support Taichung, other countries are oppressed by China. Lin believed that once there is a chance to straighten the rules, there should be supports from other countries. Together the entire Taiwan, we must make efforts to validate the hardworking of every athletes.

Public concerns on the claim procedure not specified in the contract, and whether the case would go to international arbitration, Lin pointed out that “peaceful discussion over dispute” is explicitly written in the contract, however the procedure did not include city government, and the procedure not peaceful. The legitimacy of the appeal is based on such facts.