The method used by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to pass its "anti-secession" law differs from the method used in the past. Traditionally, draft legislation is discussed in negotiations between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the government before being submitted by the State Council or a relevant government body to the National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee for review; or the committee is asked to submit it to the NPC for review.
This time, however, the NPC Standing Committee itself took the initiative to submit the bill to the NPC for review. The reason it did this was to highlight the high level of public consensus in China regarding the enactment of the anti-secession law in an attempt to avoid pressure from the international community on the CCP and government bodies.
But, given the democratic centralism in China's Constitution, the CCP leadership's principles and the reality of the CCP's party-ruled state, it would be unthinkable that the NPC could enact legislation without the guidance or tacit agreement of the CCP.
This shows the CCP's strong determination to enact the anti-secession law. This shows that the CCP has understood how manipulating public opinion support and help legitimize its policies.
Continued manipulation of the legislation process could also serve to offset or re-direct the effects from the anti-Communist uproar that could result from the death of the CCP's former general secretary Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽), which would help stabilize their hold on power.
From the drafting of the anti-secession law by the NPC Standing Committee's legal system work group and the review of the draft by the Central Committee to the NPC session, the contents of the bill have remained secret. The official position is that the law is still being reviewed, and it is not yet time to announce it to the public.
Since the legislative processes of the NPC and its Central Committee are not open to the public, we must ask ourselves whether this is really a government agency representing public opinion. How does the NPC Central Committee find out what the public thinks?
Have the symposia, debates and public hearings stipulated in Article 34 of the Law on Legislation of the People's Republic of China really been widely adopted as a way to ensure the participation of those with different opinions? Has China consulted Taiwanese people residing in China, who are likely to be affected by this law? Or could it be that other than showing support for the motives behind the anti-secession legislation, people have no way to express their concern over the law's structure, content, execution and other technical issues?
Furthermore, according to Article 27 of the Law on Legislation of the People's Republic of China, legal bills included on the agenda at a meeting of the Standing Committee should be reviewed three times before being submitted to a vote. And, according to the regulations in Article 28, Clause 1, legal bills on the agenda at a meeting of the Standing Committee -- and on which opinions are closer to being unanimous -- may be submitted to a vote after two reviews.
Although the anti-secession law was not written by the NPC, judging from the decision to submit it for review by the NPC, it is given far more importance than other laws. It was only reviewed once by the NPC Standing Committee at its meeting in December.
The Standing Committee meets once every two months, and under normal circumstances, it should take six months to pass any piece of legislation.
The fact that the anti-secession law will be passed at the two-week NPC meeting -- despite its contents yet having to be announced -- further shows how the legal process is lacking in respect for public opinion and how it violates legal principles.
There is a very simple reason why China does not want any public discussion about the anti-secession law -- because the CCP's leaders want to control public opinion. They do not want dissenting voices to be heard either domestically or internationally, because that would destroy their legal war on Taiwan.
If the anti-secession law includes definitions and sentencing regulations for "blocking unification" or "engaging in secessionist activities," and if an anti-secession court is set up, then Taiwanese institutions, groups or people connected to anyone in Taiwan deemed to engage in secessionist activities would all be seen as accomplices.
The reason the PRC still hasn't annexed Taiwan is because it can't, although it does have the power to implement totalitarian rule in China. Even if the anti-secession law is promulgated, China cannot guarantee that it will be able to annex Taiwan. It can, however, guarantee that it will use this law as a tool to control and suppress domestic secessionist groups.
The law's true target is not the Taiwanese people. China has no jurisdiction over Taiwanese people in Taiwan. The target will become Chinese officials and members of the public who have been deemed as doing too little to oppose secessionist activities.
In his report to the 15th NPC in September 1997, former CCP party secretary-general Jiang Zemin (江澤民) described his view of the principle of a nation ruled by law by saying that ruling a country by law means integrating leaders who are true to the party and believe in the power of the people and strict legal procedures. In the anti-secession law, we only see the traces of party leaders, and nothing of the people's power or strict legal procedures. Is that a step back for socialist law, or is it the face of the future?
Tseng Chien-yuan is the vice director of the department of legal and constitutional study at the Taiwan Thinktank.
Translated by Ya-ti Lin and Perry Svensson
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS