The eighth round of cross-strait talks between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) were held in Taipei on Thursday. One of the main points was the signing of a cross-strait investment protection pact that had already been put aside for some time. It is hoped that this agreement will be able to protect the rights of Taiwanese businesspeople. However, I am afraid that the inking of this agreement is more of a formality than anything truly substantial. Taiwanese businesspeople in China often encounter the problem of having a straightforward civil dispute treated as a criminal case.
Although the SEF and ARATS signed the Agreement on Jointly Cracking Down on Crime and Mutual Legal Assistance Across the Strait in April 2009, this agreement is mainly concerned with mutual assistance in repatriating criminals and gathering criminal intelligence. As a result, prescriptions for the protection of the rights of Taiwanese in China or Chinese in Taiwan and especially issues involving the treatment of suspects during criminal investigations, naturally fall outside the scope of this agreement.
However, because the number of Taiwanese in China is much greater than the number of Chinese in Taiwan and because China is a long way behind Taiwan when it comes to the protection of human rights, the freedom of Taiwanese people in China, especially businesspeople, is under constant threat.
According to Article 50 of China’s Criminal Procedure Law, as long as someone is suspected of involvement in criminal activities, police can not only summon the suspect to court and detain them, they can also place suspects under house arrest. Not only are they not allowed to leave their home, but they will also be forbidden from meeting with anyone, for a period up to six months.
Also, according to Articles 2, 64 and 71 of the same law, the police must notify the family of the person who has been arrested or detained and tell them the reason for their arrest or detention. However, another rule in the same law states that if the notification cannot be passed on, the case can be viewed as an exception to the norm.
Police often use such “exceptions” as a reason for not notifying the family — especially as the families of Taiwanese businesspeople are often in “far-off” Taiwan, it is easier for police to use these “barriers to communication” as a reason not to notify the family, which makes matters even worse for Taiwanese businesspeople than for Chinese.
If Taiwanese businesspeople gain the prompt protection of a lawyer after their arrest it seems this shortcoming can be resolved. This is why, according to Article 96, Item 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law, those suspected of involvement in a crime may apply for a lawyer during the first round of questioning or when they are issued with a prosecutor’s order.
However, if the case in question involves classified information, the consent of investigating authorities is required before a lawyer can be hired. This means that the investigative authority can restrict a suspect’s right to defend themselves based on vague claims of national security. Also, even if a suspect gets a lawyer, they only have the right to meet with their lawyer, but they cannot — as is the case in Taiwan — have their lawyer present during questioning. This means that investigations are carried out in secret, which increases the risk of torture.
Another thing that can cause problems for Taiwanese businesspeople in China is Article 69, Item 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law. After gaining permission from prosecutors, police may detain a suspect for three days and according to Item 2 of the same article, the detention can be extended to 30 days if it is a repeat offense or if there are accomplices.
This kind of regulation that allows police to control an accused person’s freedom means that the decision to detain a suspect can be used to obtain a confession, thus creating a situation where a suspect becomes “hostage to the law.” This means that when Taiwanese businesspeople are arrested, they risk being detained for a lengthy period of time, their family may not know about their situation and their right to defense can be undermined. All this can place them in a situation of utter helplessness.
At the end of the day, the judicial treatment of Taiwanese businesspeople in China is simply a reflection of the existing human rights situation as it stands in China and it is probably useless to hope that the cross-strait investment protection pact will alter the situation.
This is also why the best way to solve this problem once and for all is not to assure special protection to Taiwanese businesspeople in China, but rather to assure improved human rights standards in China while pressing for overall reforms to China’s criminal law and judiciary process.
Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a vague hope at the moment.
Given this situation — and although Taiwan and China have signed the agreement on investment protection — the agreement is more symbolic than anything else and the personal safety of Taiwanese businesspeople in China is still at risk from the threat of arbitrary infringement.
Wu Ching-chin is an assistant professor at the Department of Financial and Economic Law at Aletheia University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis 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