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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS