Print

Mail

wiki links

China's new law does not only affect some people

The idea that China's "Anti-Secession" Law is only aimed at pro-independence forces in Taiwan, and that such people are in the minority, is a sentiment not only being uttered by Chinese officials -- you will also hear it from a great deal of people in Taiwan.

Let's put aside for the moment individual ideologies regarding unification or independence, and simply address the idea that the new law is only aimed at a minority. For this we need to look at two fundamental concepts of economics, that of "public goods" and "externalities."

Good examples of these concepts can be found in Taiwan. The first is from the days of the martial law era, when it was said that "martial law only influences the 10 percent of people who break the law." The second is from the time that Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) was premier: on the issue of unification or independence, he quite scathingly told a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmaker in the Legislative Yuan that "the army is not there to protect pro-independence [forces]."

The second example illustrates the question of whether the idea of "national defense" can exclude "pro-independence forces," and whether, in the event that China invades Taiwan, our army would repel the enemy but nevertheless stand by while the pro-independence elements in Taiwan are taken out. Of course, Hau's words are meaningless given that such pro-independence elements are distributed throughout the nation, and that national defense is non-discriminatory. It is there for the whole nation, including those who support independence. In other words, national defense belongs to the category of "public goods."

The first example implies that if you behave like a perfect citizen, obey the rules, don't raise any contrary arguments or oppose those in power, you will not get on the bad side of martial law, or criminal law.

Nevertheless, the White Terror era is quite definitely behind us, and the days of surveillance at the hands of the Taiwan Military Garrison Command and the intelligence forces are over. The fear of Big Brother breathing down our necks, as well as the countless miscarriages of justice and personal grudges that have been publicly aired, just went to show that "corrupt officials are even worse than organized crime." The minute freedom of expression is restricted, it will be interpreted and decided upon by specific individuals, and power goes into the hands of a few, behind the front of engaging in a deliberation process.

For this reason, despite the fact that its wording specifies that the law is only "aimed at a minority," it is actually possible to put anyone within this category. Even if one is not quite pro-independence, it's always possible to accuse someone on trumped-up charges of being sympathetic to the pro-independence cause. After all, the communists are well known for the falsehoods and framings that they perpetuate.

Through these two examples we can lay to rest the misconception that the Anti-Secession Law is only aimed at a few specific individuals, and this should lead the Taiwanese people to unite in refusing to accept it.

There is nothing hysterical in all this, and neither does it have anything to do with ideological conviction. It is a fundamental question of whether the Taiwanese can live their lives with a sense of security. The Anti-Secession Law and Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law are made of the same stuff. If the latter could move the people of Hong Kong, normally known for being motivated mainly by self-interest and financial gain, to protest in numbers exceeding half a million, shouldn't the Taiwanese come out in full strength and proclaim to China, and to the international community, that we refuse to be made into slaves?

Wu Hui-lin is a research fellow at the Chung Hua Institution for Economic Research.

?Translated by Paul Cooper
This story has been viewed 2436 times.