A group of lawmakers led by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chiu Chih-wei (邱志偉) have proposed amending existing legislation so that political parties funded by, or acting as proxies for, hostile foreign powers can be dissolved by court order.
The legislation in question is the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), which was passed two years ago to combat interference in Taiwan’s elections by hostile external forces — in other words, China.
The act prohibits people from making political donations to, or funding candidates running for public office on behalf of a foreign power or external entity. It also covers referendum campaigns and lobbying government officials. Those found guilty are punishable by a custodial sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to NT$10 million (US$348,371).
Is there a case to be made to support Chiu’s proposed amendment, which would furnish the executive with sweeping powers to shut down political parties if they are found to be colluding with Beijing?
Clearly, it is important to continually review laws and regulations to close any loopholes that are being exploited. Many democracies worldwide are in the process of doing so, or have already passed new legislation.
Australian counterespionage and law enforcement agencies have uncovered a number of attempts by China to influence the political system.
The Australian Senate in 2018 passed legislation that created new espionage offenses, updated sabotage offenses, introduced tougher penalties for foreign spies and established a register of foreign political agents.
Similar influence peddling operations have been uncovered in the US and the UK.
Given that Taiwan exists under the constant threat of invasion by China, the threat of espionage, including the infiltration of its political system by Chinese operatives, is a real and present danger. As such, Taiwan’s legislation and penalties might be expected to be some of the most stringent in the democratic world, but this is not the case.
The nation’s judicial system is notorious for handing down paltry fines and trifling custodial sentences to Taiwanese convicted of espionage, while most politicians do not have the will to remedy the situation. Perhaps it is a legacy of the White Terror era.
The whole focus of the democratization movement over the past four decades has been to dismantle the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) party-state apparatus. It is therefore psychologically difficult — and a political hard sell — to push in the other direction. The memory of the excesses of the authoritarian era are still fresh in the minds of many.
Nevertheless, Chinese infiltration is like rust hiding under the paintwork of an old vehicle: invisible and corrosive. If it is not identified and quickly treated, the rust will eventually eat away at every piece of metalwork on the vehicle.
Taiwan’s political and civic institutions, including schools, universities, media and religious organizations, must be protected from the corrosive effects of Chinese influence operations.
As always, the devil is in the detail. Politicians and academics must closely scrutinize the proposed legislation, remembering that laws must always be proportionate and that legislating in haste makes for bad laws.
However, a whole-of-government approach is needed to tackle the problem — legislation, on its own, would be insufficient.
The good news is that pro-China political parties are hemorrhaging support as a Taiwanese consciousness flourishes among the younger generation. Aging rabble-rousers such as China Unification Promotion Party founder Chang An-le (張安樂) and his ilk are increasingly a political irrelevance.
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