Pro-unification Chinese academic Li Yi (李毅) was on Friday morning deported after it was found that he planned to attend a Chinese Unity Promotion Party (CUPP) seminar.
Reports about Li’s arrest at a hostel in Nantou County and his subsequent deportation were filled with confusing and contradictory information.
One report referred to him as a “US academic,” while another called him a “Chinese academic.” Li works in the US, but he entered Taiwan on an entry permit because he is a Chinese citizen — making his country of employment irrelevant.
Reports variously attributed Li’s arrest to his being a “threat to national security” or his having “breached the terms of his tourism entry permit.”
Executive Yuan spokeswoman Kolas Yotaka said that Li had contravened Article 16 of the Regulations Governing the Approval of People of the Mainland Area Visiting Taiwan for Purposes of Tourism (大陸地區人民來台從事觀光活動許可辦法).
As the National Immigration Agency said that Li posed a potential threat to national security, Yotaka must have been referring to that part of Article 16.
Without a doubt, most Taiwanese would not necessarily welcome someone into the nation who has called for the People’s Liberation Army to invade Taiwan, but the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration must handle the issue carefully.
If Li is truly a “terrorist,” as Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) said on Friday, then why was he allowed to visit? On the other hand, if Taiwan allows free speech, why would Li’s comments about wanting China’s military to attack Taiwan be a problem?
While China is known to use Taiwan’s democracy against it, the government cannot be indecisive when tackling such issues.
It could have announced that Li was breaching the conditions of his entry permit by engaging in activity not related to tourism, but most would have quickly recognized the true motive for deporting him.
Such a response might prompt visiting Chinese government agents to become more devious: Maybe they would wait and not reveal the purpose of their visit until the last minute, or they might declare the purpose of their visit openly and challenge the government on its position of protecting freedom of speech.
A better approach might have been for the government to amend the law, denying entry to any Chinese citizen who advocates military action against Taiwan, but this still would not resolve the thorny question of why the DPP administration is so threatened by talk of unification.
If most Taiwanese do not want unification, what does it matter if people hold pro-unification discussions at a private seminar?
The government should take issue with public disturbances by pro-unification groups: for example, when Chang Wei (張瑋), son of former Bamboo Union (竹聯幫) leader Chang An-le (張安樂), attacked Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong (黃之鋒) at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.
Members of the Concentric Patriotism Alliance, CUPP and other pro-unification groups in Taiwan often hold rallies and protests in public spaces frequented by tourists, such as the Ximending (西門町) shopping district in Taipei and the square in front of Taipei 101. These demonstrations could pose a threat to public safety and should not be permitted.
The government should deny entry to anyone instigating violence or seeking to destabilize society, but, to avoid scrutiny, it should revise the law so that denying such people entry cannot be called into question.
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