Media outlets are ablaze with accusations by the New Party that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) orchestrated a “heavy-handed” 6:30am search of the apartments of four of its members.
Investigation Bureau officers on Tuesday raided the homes of New Party spokesman Wang Ping-chung (王炳忠) and members Hou Han-ting (侯漢廷), Lin Ming-cheng (林明正) and Chen Ssu-chun (陳斯俊), confiscating documents and devices, and taking them in for questioning.
The reason was for allegedly collecting and providing intelligence to the Chinese Communist Party in violation of the National Security Act (國家安全法). Some are even suggesting that the raid indicates a return to the White Terror era from 1947 to 1987 during the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) authoritarian regime.
Those people are getting ahead of themselves.
Media reports are questioning the proportionality of the raid and suggesting that the DPP is abusing its power, because the New Party is small, much reduced from its peak. It has no representation in the Legislative Yuan and only has two Taipei city councilors.
Article 2.1 of the act prohibits people from “carrying on detection, collection, consignation or delivery of any confidential documents, photographs, information or articles, or developing an organization for official use of a foreign country or mainland China, for its militaries, party duties or other official organizations.”
Commentators are asking what access the New Party members would have had to important confidential information and how they could have passed it on.
The four were arrested in connection with an espionage case involving alleged Chinese spy Zhou Hongxu (周泓旭), who has sufficient evidence stacked against him to prove he violated the act, prosecutors say.
Whether the raid was justified or proportionate depends on the nature of the investigation and what the bureau already knows. This is information to which the public is not privy.
Other objections are that the officers forced their way into Wang’s apartment and that his lawyer was kept outside the room during the search, even though Wang was neither a defendant nor a suspect, while some are questioning whether the officers were guilty of procedural violations.
First, according to reports, Wang refused the officers entry for 40 minutes.
Article 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) says: “If a search is resisted, force may be used, but such force may not be excessive.”
Second, according to Article 144, paragraph 2 of the code: “In executing the search or seizure, the premises subject to search may be closed to public and ... any person other than the accused, suspect or a third person ... may be prohibited to enter the premises.”
According to these passages, it could be argued that procedure was followed.
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman An Fengshan (安峰山) on Tuesday released a statement, saying that “as everyone knows,” the New Party is a staunch advocate of the “one China” principle and an opponent of Taiwanese independence, and is promoting the peaceful development of cross-strait relations.
He then accused the “Taiwan authorities” of protecting “secessionist” forces and of using “all manner of tricks” to “wantonly suppress and intimidate” advocates of cross-strait peace.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The New Party seems to have a loyal friend in the office. Perhaps there is more to the allegations than meets the eye.
In addition, if the New Party is so concerned about abuses of power, it might want to be careful what it wishes for.
In a vibrant democracy, it is appropriate that questions are asked and that the government is held to a high standard of oversight — but the White Terror era this is not.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS