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
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
RSS