When retired army colonel Hsin Peng-sheng (辛澎生) was found guilty of spying for China, the prosecution was dissatisfied with his six-month prison sentence and appealed the case.
However, he was found not guilty by a court of appeal, and he has been acquitted again in a retrial.
The judges’ reasoning was that there are no facts or evidence to prove that Hsin developed a spying organization on behalf of China.
Unsurprisingly, the judges of the High Court’s Kaohsiung branch took a simplistic view and followed the letter of the law, because they are not worldly wise and do not know much about how such spying organizations are developed.
After coming into contact with the Political Work Department of China’s Central Military Commission, Hsin frequently accepted invitations to banquets, and even introduced his friends to personnel of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.
Face-to-face meetings, building rapport and socializing regularly are how mobsters build their organizations. To make a good impression, the mobsters do a favor for someone, then that person introduces them to their friends — that is how the gang grows.
Whether Hsin was given any tasks to carry out should be thoroughly investigated.
Despite being a high-ranking officer, Hsin lacked the self-discipline to avoid suspicion of espionage, but instead repeatedly contacted the other side and accepted dinner invitations. Then, he got more people involved by “telling his friends about the good food.”
This obviously went beyond simple friendship or love for his compatriots. Rather, it was aimed at growing the organization by attracting other weak-willed people with military connections.
Thinking about it from another angle might make it even easier to understand. Nobody would think it appropriate for judges to accept dinner invitations from people involved in the cases they try in their courtrooms.
However, it would not be proper for them to meet and chat with such people, or even introduce them to other court colleagues or parties to the case.
Hsin’s case is no different.
Chen Chi-nung is a former reserve political warfare officer who works in the field of education.
Translated by Julian Clegg
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
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
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS