Apart from the fracas in the legislature last week, two other events warrant attention.
The first is Internet celebrity Chung Ming-hsuan (鍾明軒) and his trip to China.
In his vlog, he talked about how China is a wonderful place, fawning — in exasperated awe — over the luxurious facades of the cities he visited, and how he received a friendly and welcoming reception from some Chinese.
Seeing is believing, and his videos and descriptions immediately invited heated discussion.
The second has to do with Chinese spouses of Taiwanese citizens. On Thursday last week, prosecutors charged Ho Jianghua (何建華), the former chairwoman of the Taipei-based Chinese Women’s Federation -— which advocates for Chinese spouses of Taiwanese — and former secretary Pao Ke-ming (包克明) for accepting funding from the All-China Federation of Taiwan Compatriots, which is part of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee.
They solicited money to form and grow their organization and spread disinformation, among other activities, prosecutors said.
The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office’s court of first instance ultimately found them “not guilty.”
Looking at these two events, several important points must be discussed.
First, from a simple tourism standpoint, Shanghai and Beijing are internationalized Chinese cities. It does not take much effort to see that the two cities are bustling.
Anyone could understand why Chung would share his observations on everything he saw and heard while touring the cities.
Second, the problem is that Chung is not just another tourist. Many of his previous videos mention that he is Taiwanese and that he once loathed China.
Given China’s Counter-Espionage Law and its National Security Law, Chung’s commentaries could land him in a lot of hot water or get him arrested and tried. It would all boil down to whether the Chinese government felt compelled to do so.
China’s Counter-Espionage Law and National Security Law state that activities such as taking a photograph, recording a video, using maps with GPS, searching for official or local business information on the Internet, talking to or holding interviews with locals and participating in religious activities could all be seen as grounds for influencing national security and could lead to arrest and incarceration.
However, there is considerable leeway for these laws.
Chinese authorities did not make things difficult for Chung — this was nothing more than a template created by Beijing to further spread its propaganda.
Chung has unwittingly fallen into an incredibly dangerous trap.
If he keeps “carrying China’s water” and reinforcing its “facade,” travelers going to China might end up copying his behavior and causing themselves a lot of legal pain and punishment.
Third, China’s rule “by” law is not the West’s rule “of” law.
We might be acquitted if we are charged under the National Security Act (國家安全法) in Taiwan, because the nation has a constitutional right to an independent judiciary.
Chinese law and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) have repeatedly asserted that China absolutely cannot adopt a three-body system of government, with a separation of powers and an independent judicial system.
They have also asserted that laws are to be weaponized, that China should actively participate in the formulation of international rules and regulations, and that it should become a promoter and leader of global governance.
If the Chungs of the world contravened China’s laws, they would be arrested and tried there.
Do not be misled into thinking that China’s laws are the same as Taiwan’s, where people can be acquitted or be found innocent.
Taiwan’s national security laws and Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) are imposed based on evidence, but that is a separate conversation for another time.
A country does not define democracy, human rights and the rule of law by how it treats people with the same opinions as those in power, but rather by how it treats those in opposition.
China wants to develop technology, travel and tourism, but each Chinese tourist and person with technical acumen has been cultivated to have the exact same goal as the Chinese government.
It is too late for China to welcome everyone with different opinions.
Of course, China cannot suppress everyone. People should pay attention to those who hold opposing views from the Chinese government: intellectuals, human rights lawyers and international firms that wish to realize corporate rights in China. They have been suppressed, arbitrarily — and indiscriminately — arrested and investigated.
This point is related to an individual’s wealth and status, life and Taiwan’s national security.
The Chung Ming-hsuans of the world would do well to keep all of this in mind.
Carol Lin is a law professor in the Graduate Institute of Technology Law at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.
Translated by Tim Smith
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
RSS