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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS