Many have heard the story of Lee Ming-che (李明哲), a Taiwanese human rights activist sentenced to five years in a Chinese detention center for state subversion. His story has made headlines globally based on facts of his case that startle and surprise.
However, Lee’s story carries a greater sense of meaning. It is a tale of why comprehensive support matters in activism, especially when advocating for human rights in China.
This case stemmed from the initial action of supporting others. At the time of his arrest, Lee was providing money and books to families of political prisoners in China. Lee believes it is important to improve China’s human rights and democracy because it also benefits people outside of China.
These efforts do not necessarily seem grand enough to present concern to the Chinese government. Lee believes that well-organized human rights groups are a threat to the Chinese government, not necessarily the work that the groups are doing.
When Lee entered China from Macau in 2017, he was arrested and detained under “residential surveillance in a designated location” (RSDL) measures. For Lee, the first 10 days were a vital time, as the Chinese government was required to report his arrest within that period.
If the government had not reported a disappearance, it would not have been the first time. As of 2019, the Straits Exchange Foundation reported 67 cases of Taiwanese going missing in China. It cannot be confirmed that the reason for all disappearances is detainment, although it is safe to assume this is the circumstance for a handful of cases.
Luckily for Lee, he had a wife who vocally supported him from the start to the end of his detention. Due to the concern brought forth by his wife, Taiwanese human rights organizations and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Beijing was pressured to report the detention of Lee. Further pressure on his case led to the first-ever court hearing of subversion of state charges.
Of course, the legitimacy of the trial is another concern, as Lee said this was a rehearsed event with a script and planned outcome. Nonetheless, the publicity of a court hearing provided a large enough impact to bring awareness to Chinese and gain international attention.
China regards subversion of state as a crime that could lead to life in prison. Lee only had to serve five years.
By China’s criminal code, when someone has been found guilty of subversion of state, their political rights are withheld for two years after their release. Which political rights are withheld is somewhat unclear in cases involving Taiwanese and other foreign detainees.
At the end of his sentence, Lee received a warning that disorderly conduct could keep him in China for two years after his release. As has been witnessed, those threats did not come to fruition, and he returned to Taiwan immediately upon discharge.
On the other hand, another Taiwanese political prisoner arrested on similar charges, Morrison Lee (李孟居), in 2020 faced a different outcome. Rather than a clear explanation for Morrison Lee’s arrest, an umbrella of espionage has been tacked on. Granted, he was imprisoned for a significantly shorter time — one year and 10 months. The greatest contrast was rather than being returned after he had served his term, Morrison Lee was banned from leaving China for two years, during which time he was kept under surveillance.
Although Lee Ming-che does not have all the answers, when asked why he thought this was the case for Morrison Lee, he said that the difference might be high-profile support.
Support requires two aspects: a family wanting to draw attention to your case and NGOs campaigning for you. Without a family daring to resist intimidation from Beijing and being willing to work closely with NGOs, your outcome might not be as good as Lee Ming-che’s.
In contrast, Morrison Lee’s family has chosen to remain quiet about his capture throughout the whole process, despite NGOs’ efforts to bring attention to his case.
Some might misconstrue the outcome of Lee Ming-che’s case as a failure for rights advocates to get the demands they press for, such as a shortened imprisonment, but Lee Ming-che himself feels very differently.
Compared with the case of Morrison Lee and in a reflection of his time in prison, Lee Ming-che felt that every time there was a public outcry for his rights, things got better for him and others in the same prison.
For example, China’s prison regulations stipulate that inmates work eight hours a day, and have one day of rest and one day of education every week.
Lee Ming-che said that during his detention in the Chishan Prison in Hunan Province, the facility did not follow the law. Prisoners worked for as long as 12 or 13 hours a day, and sometimes even 14 hours. Except for four days off for the Lunar New Year festival, there were no days of rest.
“We even needed to work on the education day. But, because my wife kept revealing the real situation of the prison to the outside world and the prison was under pressure, we finally had one day off a week,” Lee Ming-che said.
The response to the conditions of his imprisonment demonstrated that not all detainees and their families accept to be silenced and go quietly.
Most of his inmates were in jail for murder or drug-related crimes. Lee Ming-che seldom met anyone on death row in China because of his status as a political prisoner.
However, Lee Ming-che said he can identify with death row prisoners because he also shared moments of waiting and enduring the unknown of the future, especially during his time in RSDL.
“The unknown of the future is the scariest thing,” Lee Ming-che said.
Lee Ming-che believes the key thing for prisoners is that you should give them hope, because without hope a lot of problems emerge.
When you do not have hope, you are more likely to fight and cause problems. For the stability of the prison and the overall environment, it is better to give them hope, which is not possible for death row inmates and those sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Despite the uncertainty of his life for five years, Lee Ming-che’s time as a political prisoner was important. His case shows plainly that having support and speaking out can make a difference.
The Chinese government has been successful in intimidating people into silence, but Lee has displayed how it might be in everybody’s better interest to speak up against this authoritarian regime.
Maria Wilkinson is an English correspondent at the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS