Taiwanese Falun Gong practitioner Bruce Chung (鍾鼎邦) was released and allowed to return home on Saturday after being detained in China for more than 50 days for activities that China said damaged national security. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) and Straits Exchange Foundation attributed Chung’s release to the cross-strait crime-fighting and mutual judicial assistance agreement and insisted that the mechanisms set up under the agreement allowed the two sides to negotiate. The government will undoubtedly tout the release of Chung as a successful example of cross-strait cooperation and goodwill. In reality, what the case really illustrates is the wayward nature of China’s legal system and the secretive nature of cross-strait dispute resolution.
Chinese authorities arrested Chung on June 18 for allegedly helping hijack a Chinese TV station’s signal several years ago and posing serious risks to national security. The MAC and the Ministry of Justice said the two sides were in contact about Chung’s situation and that China abided by the judicial assistance agreement and informed Chung’s family members of his whereabouts within 24 hours of his detainment.
However, both the council and the Chinese authorities refused to discuss the case and Chung’s detainment did not raise much attention until Falun Gong practitioners launched protests against Chung’s detention during the cross-strait talks last week. When asked whether the Chung case was mentioned during the talks, council Chairperson Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) failed to answer directly, but said that the government had raised the issue with Beijing several times.
Government officials later privately acknowledged that, following the talks, China had agreed an under-the-table deal approving Chung’s release, as part of which it was agreed that freeing him would avoid shifting the attention of the cross-strait talks. It is a great irony that while it was still refusing to release Chung, China signed the cross-strait investment protection agreement and promised to safeguard Taiwanese businesspeople in China.
Taiwan failed in its attempt to put personal safety issues at the core of the agreement: Measures to protect the personal safety of Taiwanese businesspeople, including a notification system that requires Chinese authorities to inform family members of the arrest of any Taiwanese businessperson within 24 hours of them being detained, are now only included in a supplementary consensus document. The exclusion of the 24-hour notification system combined with China’s newly amended criminal litigation law, which stipulates that authorities do not need to inform family members of arrests of suspects involved in national security or terrorist acts, raises further questions about China’s willingness to implement the agreement.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration also failed to defend the rights of Taiwanese in cross-strait disputes. Chung’s wife met with her husband in China before his release thanks to the assistance of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元), rather than government officials.
Chung’s family members have only sought to ensure that he returned home safely. It is unacceptable for the Ma administration to brag about Chung’s release. The under-the-table deals and covert family visits demonstrate that even with the investment protection pact, Taiwanese will continue to suffer threats to their personal wellbeing.
Chung’s case is not an exception. Many Taiwanese have experienced similar situations. The government should work to sign an agreement on personal safety and expand the scope of protection to Taiwanese students in China and other Taiwanese who work and live there. More importantly, Taiwan should press harder on China to respect human rights. Only when China takes the issue of human rights seriously can we trust it to implement any cross-strait agreements.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry