When a special envoy from the Philippines came last week to explain why 14 Taiwanese fraud suspects were sent to China for crimes allegedly committed there, he said he had not been authorized to apologize, leaving Taiwan less than satisfied. I hope this does not harm reciprocal judicial assistance and cooperation between Taipei and Manila.
After Taipei and Beijing signed an agreement on reciprocal judicial assistance in April 2009 and as the number of deportations increased, Taiwanese fraud rings started to move their activities away from China to other countries, such as the Philippines and Vietnam, with which Taiwan has no such agreements. This, plus Taipei’s insistence on “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” and China’s constant attempts to assert its sovereignty over Taiwan, has placed Taiwan’s sovereignty at risk.
Taipei has said that Manila’s failure to send the Taiwanese -suspects here in accordance with the nationality principle has severely damaged Taiwanese sovereignty. However, viewing the conditions in which reciprocal judicial assistance applies — namely, sovereignty, crime prevention and human rights protection — this is a weak argument. Because the alleged crimes were committed in the Philippines and the victims were people living in China — not Taiwan — Taipei is unable to stake claim to territorial jurisdiction in this matter. All it can lay claim to is personal jurisdiction.
Article 7 of the Criminal Code states that Taiwanese who commit crimes in foreign lands are punishable if the crimes carry a sentence of three years or more. The code also says that fraud is punishable by a sentence of five years or less. Therefore, if those 14 Taiwanese had been sent here, it is unlikely they would have been -convicted. With these loopholes in the penal system, the Philippines would not risk becoming a haven for criminals involved in cross-strait crime. To cover up these loopholes, Manila would have to admit that China belongs to Taiwan and all the suspects in the case — including 10 Chinese nationals — would have to be deported here.
Additionally, with all of the victims and evidence in China, extraditing the suspects here for trial would impede the legal proceedings. If this happened, all cases on crimes committed in China would have to be held here. Far from realistic, the judiciary would also be unable to cope with it.
Even if we ignore the issue of Taiwanese sovereignty, China now has territorial jurisdiction over all suspects involved because the alleged victims are in China. What’s more, because the victims live in China, holding the trial there is more convenient for investigation purposes. Given the extradition treaty between the Philippines and China, Manila’s only concern should be whether the Taiwanese will receive a fair trial in China.
There have been many instances of Taiwanese being tried in China for crimes committed there, as well as many cases of Chinese human rights activists being persecuted by the Chinese judiciary. Taipei has never shown any concern nor lodged a protest over these matters. Blaming Manila only highlights how weak Taipei acts whenever it comes face to face with Beijing.
Since Taiwan has such a weak argument, it was only to be expected that Manila would not apologize. Taipei should ask Manila to explain its reason for sending the Taiwanese to China. Was it because the crimes affected people in China and it was more convenient to gather evidence and hold the investigation there? Or was it to prevent the possibility that the Taiwanese suspects would be found not guilty if they were deported to Taiwan? Or was it because of the “one China” principle? A simple apology cannot solve complex issues like these.
Crimes targeting Taiwanese and Chinese being carried out in third countries are on the rise. This makes signing agreements on reciprocal judicial assistance vital. Taipei needs to pursue such agreements with third-party nations, especially Southeast Asian nations. This row with Manila makes it an opportune time to discuss signing such a pact with it. It is also the best time to highlight Taiwan’s sovereignty crisis.
If relations with Manila break down because Taipei continues to act emotionally and insist on an apology, this will be detrimental to effecting reciprocal judicial assistance, not to mention unhelpful for Taiwanese sovereignty.
Wu Ching-chin is an assistant professor in the department of financial and economic law at Aletheia University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with