Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Wang Ting-yu (王定宇) on Saturday called for amendments to the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces (陸海空軍刑法) to make it illegal for military personnel to help Beijing disseminate propaganda.
Wang said such an amendment was necessary for cases like that of army Colonel Hsiang Te-en (向德恩), who was last month found guilty of accepting NT$560,000 from China in exchange for signing a “surrender agreement.” Such actions could demoralize the military, posing a threat to national security, Wang said.
He is correct to be concerned about the demoralizing effect of military personnel expressing their willingness to surrender to China, but it is unlikely that stricter punishments would deter them. Just like with espionage, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is able to succeed in its “united front” efforts when two things happen: if it can link up with a Taiwanese who is influential or has access to sensitive information, and if that individual accepts its money. Both conditions can be met when the individual travels to, or transfers in, China, Hong Kong or Macau, or when the individual is contacted by a proxy of the CCP in Taiwan or in a third country.
The CCP can most easily target Taiwanese traveling to third countries when their itinerary has been made public, when the CCP found out about it through a computer hack or when an agent of the CCP is privy to the individual’s travel plans (for example, if the individual has staff members who plan their travel, and at least one of their staff has been compromised).
These scenarios might seem far-fetched, but they are not. Australian Broadcasting Corporation in October reported that personal data about the defense heads of several countries had been stolen from the computer system of a hotel in Singapore when the officials stayed there during the Shangri-La Dialogue in June.
Tackling collaboration with the CCP relies on eliminating the possibility of the conditions for collusion being met. The first step would be to disallow individuals of interest to the CCP from traveling to, or transiting through, China. An amendment prohibiting those who work with key technologies from traveling there is to take effect next month, so it is clear that the government is working on the issue. Potential targets would also have to be monitored by the nation’s security officials at all times when traveling abroad to see who they are meeting, and their staffers in Taiwan would have to be vetted regularly.
Eliminating meetings with CCP proxies in Taiwan would be more challenging without contravening privacy rules, but that means intelligence officials must step up their game to seek out local proxies.
That would handle the issue of contact, but there is also the issue of money. Those with access to sensitive information or technologies should not be allowed to receive money transfers from China, and if any suspicious payment is detected, it should be scrutinized. Eliminating in-person payments by agents goes back to the issue of eliminating meetings with proxies.
Harsher punishments for collaborating with China is not a bad idea, but officials should seek to reduce the chances of such collaboration occurring in the first place, and reduce the motivation for doing so by making it hard for collaborators to get paid. The military should also implement psychological tests for officers above a certain rank. This would help identify individuals who might be swayed by Chinese agents, or who have unscrupulous intentions in seeking promotion within the military.
The regularity with which people of influence or who have access to information in Taiwan commit treasonous acts means the government is not getting to the root of the problem. Punitive legislation alone cannot solve it.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did