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
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
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.