In April, Lam Wing-kei (林榮基), a former manager of Hong Kong’s Causeway Bay Books, was attacked by several Taiwanese, who threw red paint at him in Taipei. In October, Aegis, a Hong Kong-supporting restaurant in Taipei’s Gongguan (公館) area was vandalized with feces.
The violence has extended to Tainan, with a Taiwanese throwing eggs at the Tainan Theological College and Seminary, where an anti-extradition exhibition was being held by Hong Kongers.
STRESS-INDUCED?
The suspect, surnamed Lee (李), said after being detained that he was under stress and in a bad mood, so after buying some eggs that night, he just decided to throw them at the seminary as he was passing by to vent his anger.
However, a look at a Google map shows that Lee could have “vented his anger” in many places near his East District (東區) home.
Although he said that he had originally planned to throw the eggs at a vacant plot in the West Central District (中西), he returned to the East District four hours later to throw eggs at the seminary’s library.
Few Tainan residents would find Lee’s account believable.
If we link the three incidents, they might not be so simple. Although police immediately detained the suspects in all three incidents, the legal penalties for “liquid attacks” with paint, feces or eggs is insignificant, and if convicted, sentences can be commuted to fines.
COMMUTATIONS
Even for the most serious incident, the attack on Lam, the Taipei District Court ruled in the first instance that the defendants’ punishments could be commuted to fines — as expected.
For those external forces hostile to this nation, the cost of inciting helpers to engage in this kind of activity is low, but such activities can be intimidating.
If a solution is not found, similar incidents might one day become daily routine.
Article 1 of the Anti-infiltration Act (反滲透法), which took effect on Jan. 15, states that the purpose of the law is to prevent infiltration and interference of external hostile forces, ensure national security and social stability, and maintain the Republic of China’s (ROC) sovereignty, freedom, democracy and constitutional order.
However, a review of the Judicial Yuan’s archives shows that no ruling involving the act has yet been made.
This shows that the act — which was condemned by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) as “dreadful and hateful” — is just a “paper tiger” that has been shunted aside by the courts.
Therefore, its stated function of “preventing infiltration and interference of the external hostile forces” has yet to be given full play.
AMENDMENT
To resolve this clear and urgent threat, 17 lawmakers, including Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Kuo Kuo-wen (郭國文), have proposed a draft amendment to Article 6 of the act, which would impose heavy penalties on people who deliberately commit such minor offenses as the above-mentioned incidents.
This plan deserves our support, but seven months since the draft was proposed, it remains frozen in a legislative committee waiting for an initial review.
This is unfortunate. Surely the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee and the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee should work harder to see the measure passed.
Lo Cheng-chung is director of Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS