Two figures stand out in modern Taiwanese history: Chang Hsien-yi (張憲義), who recently gave an interview in the US for the Taiwan Oral History Society, and Justin Lin (林毅夫), who has repeatedly expressed his wish to return to Taiwan.
Chang was deputy director of the National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology’s nuclear energy research division when he defected to the US in 1988, while Lin was a company commander of the Kinmen Defense Command when he defected to China in 1979. Both held military posts when they fled the country and both have been seen as traitors.
Lin was serving on what was at the time the front lines. Carrying his military identification and other documents, he swam from Kinmen to Xiamen in China to join the Chinese Communist Party. As for Chang, he was recruited by the CIA and leaked confidential information about Taiwan’s nuclear arms program to the US when it was nearly completed. As a result, the nuclear energy facilities at the institute were removed in a US raid.
Both men became experts in their fields. Lin became vice president of the World Bank and Chang worked for the Idaho National Laboratory. Since both of them are now retired, discussions over possibly reversing decisions regarding their cases crops up from time to time.
When former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was in office, Lin’s status as a native of Yilan County became an issue when the government discussed whether to approve his application to return to Taiwan to visit relatives. During President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) two terms, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government was sympathetic toward the case, partly due to Lin’s membership in the Standing Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.
As for Chang, his case has showed up again as the nation prepares for a change in administration, with historians raising the question of whether the US is an enemy state of Taiwan in the interview with Chang.
For Taiwanese younger than 35, these events took place before they were born. Their understanding of the facts is one thing and how they interpret them is sure to vary. That said, comparing the two cases shows that Lin and Chang were officers who abandoned their military duties to defect to China or the US. Disregarding their motives, if the same thing were to happen today, would people assess the situation differently given how time has passed and the environment has changed following democratization?
The first issue in trying to answer this question is whether the definition of an act as treason is determined by the relationship between Taiwan and the country a person defects to; is it an enemy state or not?
In the Criminal Code, articles 100 to 102 regarding sedition, articles 103 to 115 regarding treason, and articles 116 to 120 regarding offenses of interference with relations with other states, stipulate these offenses as interaction with “foreign” and “other countries,” and does not restrict them to interactions with enemies during times of war.
China has never given up the option of using military force against Taiwan and it remains the nation’s biggest external threat. For a majority of the public, there is little argument that it is an enemy state. When it comes to the US, on the other hand, Taiwanese would probably agree that it is a foreign state that has both a cooperative and a competitive relationship with Taiwan. Taiwan and the US have many mutual interests, but there are also many conflicting interests.
However, as an officer entrusted by the government, Chang betrayed his country and committed treason by leaking confidential military information to Washington. Besides, he left Taiwan with the help of the CIA and then caused actual damage to the nation by participating in a secret hearing in the US. Such a crime cannot be legitimized by his argument during the interview that he merely betrayed then-chief of the general staff Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村), not Taiwan.
Drawing a clear line between Taiwan and other countries in matters of interests is about loyalty. By doing so, the idea that the nation is dependent on any big power while building Taiwan as a country can be done away with, reconfirming the Taiwanese awareness that should be deeply planted in people’s hearts. This is the only way for Taiwan to cast off the long history of colonial rule and bid farewell to the historical entanglements of their parents and grandparents.
For Taiwanese born after 1980, these things are as natural as breathing and are not an issue. However, many of those in the generations that are currently in power and who have a say in the political, business, social and cultural sectors are still confused over who they are. They are unable to face the fact that Taiwan is not dependent on any foreign state. If they do not promote self-awareness, this will be unfavorable to the formation of national policies and social consensus. It will affect Taiwan’s progress, while widening divergence among generations.
All Taiwanese should think deeply over the question of national interests. In the past, decisions were perhaps flawed as a result of the lack of democratic procedures. However, from now on, with the consent of the majority, the nation should make the pursuit of Taiwan’s best interests a goal of the shared community.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS