It should come as no surprise that human rights advocate Lee Ming-che (李明哲) pleaded guilty to the Chinese authorities’ charge of “subversion of state power” during a court hearing in China’s Hunan Province yesterday.
Lee’s wife, Lee Ching-yu (李凈瑜), on Saturday had asked Taiwanese for understanding and forgiveness if her husband said anything unbearable in court against his will, adding: “This is just the Chinese government being adept at forcing confessions.”
Indeed. The Beijing authorities can claim all they like that Chinese trials are open and transparent, but the truth is that the judiciary, in a country ruled by an authoritarian regime, is a pretense and a tool for oppression.
People who argue otherwise need to look no further than Lee Ming-che’s imprisonment on suspicion of “engaging in activities that endanger national security,” despite Beijing providing no evidence of wrongdoing, after his forced disappearance on March 19.
Taiwan’s government wants to secure Lee Ming-che’s safety and release, so it is understandable that it has remained cautious and low-key to avoid complicating the process.
However, believing that mianzi (“face,” 面子) plays an integral part in Chinese customs, Taiwanese officials seem to have harbored a misconception that if they take a reserved approach toward China, Beijing would be given the facade of “saving face,” and it would then be more agreeable to sitting at the negotiating table.
However, this kind of soft approach only works to fuel China’s arrogance.
As a Chinese proverb says: “Kill some chickens to scare the monkeys” — intimidation, arbitrary detention and the like are nothing new in an authoritarian regime that crushes and demonizes dissidents. With forced disappearances becoming a frequent method used by Beijing to silence and intimidate people critical of the Chinese Communist Party, it is obvious what it wishes to achieve with these sorts of fear-mongering tactics.
The tactics have their underlying effects — Lee Ming-che’s situation is in the minds of many Taiwanese who are wondering if the same thing could happen to them.
The case could set a dangerous precedent, where “Taiwanese could be arrested in China for what they said or did in Taiwan,” as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus secretary-general Lin Wei-chou (林為洲) said yesterday.
Regardless of whether someone advocates Taiwanese independence, the person could be arbitrarily detained by Chinese authorities and charged with subversion of state power for being critical of the Chinese government.
Taiwan, a nation that takes pride in its democracy and respect for freedom of expression, should be vocal about human rights violations.
Instead of laying low, the government should broadcast the case to the international community to assert collective pressure on China.
A soft touch is useless in dealing with an autocratic regime. The government should stop behaving like an ostrich with its head in the sand, issuing meek rhetoric. It needs to be tougher in its dealings with China.
By being servile in the face of an authoritarian regime, the government is turning itself into an accomplice of injustice.
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
RSS