On Thursday last week, the Supreme Court finalized a guilty conviction against Chinese citizen Zhou Hongxu (周泓旭) for espionage and the 14-month sentence originally handed down by the Taipei District Court in 2017 — also upheld by the High Court in April last year — for breaches of the National Security Act (國家安全法).
This case is in stark contrast to the plight of Taiwanese human rights advocate Lee Ming-che (李明哲), who is being detained in China for engaging in “activities endangering national security.”
Lee’s “crime” was to give an online Chinese friend humanities and social sciences books; share information about the 228 Incident, the subsequent White Terror period and Taiwan’s transition from party-state rule to democracy, including transitional justice and the Sunflower movement; and to provide assistance to Chinese human rights advocates and their families.
Zhou received a 14-month custodial sentence from a Taiwanese court after having been found guilty of espionage, but Lee was handed a five-year sentence by a Chinese court for engaging in “activities endangering national security” and was deprived of his political rights for two years.
This begs the question: Are Taiwan’s law and judges too lenient or are China’s too harsh? Or perhaps Zhou was deserving of a light sentence and Lee was just unlucky?
Taiwanese are of course powerless when it comes to influencing Chinese courts, but they have a right to speak up about their own country’s judges and Zhou’s sentencing.
During the era of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), people convicted of espionage were frequently sentenced to death, and their family members left destitute and homeless. Anyone who received an eight or 10-year prison sentence would have thanked their lucky stars.
It is unclear whether it is due to a genuine newfound respect for human rights or a reduced sense of threat from the “enemy within,” but things have changed since the two Chiangs left the stage and the abolition of Article 100 of the Criminal Code — which provided the legal basis for the government to restrict freedom of expression.
Today, serious crimes such as murder and arson are given much softer sentences than in the past, and the same is true about helping spies or not reporting them.
For example, retired Republic of China Army major general Hsu Nai-chuan (許乃權), who was recruited along with a number of other military officers by then-Chinese People’s Liberation Army intelligence officer Zhen Xiaojiang (鎮小江), received a prison sentence of only two years and 10 months.
Not only that: After Hsu was released from prison in September 2017, he was still entitled to a monthly pension of NT$70,000.
In Taiwan today, a severe punishment for spying is a mere two years and 10 months behind bars, but it can be as short as 14 months. Perhaps the concept of a foreign enemy should be abolished altogether?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Edward Jones
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS