A soldier who went missing from Kinmen County on Thursday last week has been confirmed to be in China. It has not been determined why the soldier swam there, but the situation does raise the question of criminal liability.
A serving member of the military who surrenders to an enemy is punishable under Article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces (陸海空軍刑法) and liable to imprisonment of no less than 10 years, life imprisonment or the death penalty, depending on the severity of the crime.
The applicability of this law to defections to the Chinese communists has caused controversy over whether China should be considered an enemy state. This is because Article 11 of the Additional Articles of the Republic of China Constitution (中華民國憲法增修條文) treats China as part of the “mainland area,” not a foreign country.
This presents complications for the application of the crime of treason, which involves safeguarding the state’s existence. When the Criminal Code was amended in 2019, the loophole was meant to be closed by the addition of Article 115-1, extending liability for treason to “offenses committed in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, or any hostile foreign forces, or to the agents thereof.”
This amendment only settled the question of whether China is to be considered a foreign country; the matter of whether it could be considered an enemy in the eyes of the law remains unresolved. The definition of an enemy state depends on how authorities interpret the situation.
Although the Chinese People’s Liberation Army has been sending jets close to Taiwan’s airspace, there is no explicit provision in laws or official documents that considers the other side of the Taiwan Strait as an enemy state or enemy force, and this makes the application of the crime of defection to China problematic.
Consequently, if a soldier swims to the other side, they can only be punished for attempting to dodge military service.
Article 39 of the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces says a person who tries to avoid military service over a long period for the purpose of evasion could be imprisoned for up to five years, but a person who tries to escape service could have the penalty reduced if they return within six days.
The offense, then, must be committed with the intent of evading military service for a long period. If done because of emotional stress or other pressures, it would not be considered as having been committed with the intention to evade service, and would fall under Article 40 of the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces and be punishable by up to three years in prison.
This is why the notice of evasion was not issued until Wednesday, six days after the person went missing.
Further complications arise if China is unwilling to repatriate the soldier. The crime has been established, but the act is ongoing, and according to Article 80 of the Criminal Code, the statute of limitations commences from the day the offense is committed. If the offense is of a continuing nature, the period commences from the last day on which the offense is completed.
As long as the person has not returned to Taiwan to face arrest, the act is continuing and the statute of limitations does not start to run.
There is precedent in the case of Justin Lin (林毅夫), who defected to China by swimming from Kinmen to Xiamen in 1979.
Wu Ching-chin is a professor of law at Aletheia University and director of its Research Center for Criminal Law.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
RSS