The Beijing regime, which practices one-party dictatorship and has absolutely no concept of law and order, had indicated an intention to draft a national unification law right before Taiwan's legislative elections. Recently, it has changed its mind and said it intends to draft an anti-secession law, which may be used as the legal basis for using force against Taiwan.
Presumably, under the law, Taiwan's autonomous acts will fall within the definition of "separatist" or "secession" conduct, and then Beijing will have a ground for "legally" using force or taking other actions against Taiwan. In the past, Beijing has repeatedly rejected requests to renounce using force against Taiwan. Now, China has suddenly discovered that doing so seems to lack any legal basis, and therefore hopes to draft the anti-secession law, so as to justify taking action against Taiwan's moves to protect its own sovereignty.
Taiwan and China -- each a country on either side of the Taiwan Strait -- have followed international law in their interactions and exchanges. The so-called anti-secession law has nothing to do with Taiwan. From the perspective of the Republic of China (ROC), the People's Republic of China (PRC) established in 1949, rather than the ROC established in 1912, was the one guilty of a "separatist" movement.
Taiwan, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with the PRC established in 1949. In fact, under international law, before the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force in 1952, Taiwan was still part of Japanese territory. Therefore, Taiwan has never been part of the PRC, and the people of Taiwan have never paid a cent in taxes to the Chinese government, while the Chinese government has never held effective rule over Taiwan for even one day.
How can Taiwan possibly be seeking secession or separation from the PRC? Since the two were never one, how can there be any secession issue?
So, even if China enacted the anti-secession law, it would have legal force within the PRC territory only, and have nothing to do with Taiwan. The Chinese Constitution explicitly states that Taiwan is part of the "sacred" territory of the PRC, and that PRC citizens are obligated to ensure national unification.
However, such a purely "illusory" command of the constitution is completely incapable of being implemented in real life. If this is the case with the supreme law of the land, can the so-called anti-secession law be any better? Some people are making comparisons between the Chinese anti-secession law and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of the US.
However, this analogy is completely erroneous. The TRA is the basis of part of the US' foreign policy. The goal of the TRA is to protect the human rights of the people of Taiwan and ensure that the future of Taiwan will be determined in a peaceful manner. In comparison, this highlights that the anti-secession law is in reality a law seeking to engulf Taiwan. This kind of invasive and aggressive goal is not only in direct conflict with the aims of the TRA, but is prohibited under the UN Charter.
Reportedly, the target of the anti-secession law is Taiwan's plan to adopt a new constitution through a referendum. The intention is to suppress the independence of Taiwan "legally." Since the anti-secession law opposes Taiwan's adoption of a new constitution, it of course opposes the changing of the country's name or Taiwan's Constitution. The absurd thing is this: to the PRC, the ROC has long since ceased to exist.