China’s Taiwan Affairs Office on June 21 issued “judicial guidelines on imposing criminal punishments” for “die-hard” supporters of Taiwanese independence, in collaboration with its Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security and Ministry of Justice. It is based on its “Anti-Secession” Law, the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC.
The “guidelines” set out strict conviction and sentencing standards for “Taiwan independence” behavior. This new law is not only another step in China’s expansion, but also shows its extreme stance on the Taiwan issue.
The “guidelines” show that China is intensifying its legal warfare and is trying to suppress Taiwan’s independent voice through “extraterritorial application of domestic criminal jurisdiction.” This move is clearly to weaponize its criminal jurisdiction, aimed at political repression through the legal system.
China has expanded the definition of “the crime of secession” to include initiating and establishing Taiwan independence organizations, planning or formulating relevant action plans, and promoting a referendum or trying to change the legal status of “Taiwan being a part of China.”
In the “guidelines,” China stipulates punishments such as life imprisonment, fixed-term imprisonment of more than 10 years and even the death penalty for people who play major roles in Taiwanese independence activities or those who are heavily involved.
This approach is undoubtedly a blatant challenge to the basic principles of international criminal law, especially the power to arrest, issue arrest warrants and trial in absentia for “persons outside its jurisdiction.”
The definition of “Taiwan independence” in the “guidelines” is very vague — any attempt to create “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” in the international community, any behavior that “distorts or falsifies the fact that Taiwan is part of China” in any field through their job in education, culture, history or media is considered a crime.
Such a vague legal definition not only provides a legal basis for China’s suppression of Taiwan, but also facilitates the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attempt to further suppress freedom of speech and political dissent.
However, these behaviors are protected by international human rights laws such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international law expert Song Cheng-en (宋承恩) said. China’s “guidelines” clearly violate international human rights treaties.
In particular, the prosecution involves Taiwan’s external relations and international cooperation, and might affect foreign nationals. This shows that China intends to further isolate Taiwan through legal means and crack down on any international forces that support Taiwanese independence.
The international community should severely condemn and boycott China’s legal bullying. This kind of legal suppression is a means for the CCP to satisfy the nationalist sentiments within its borders and provides a legal cover for its subsequent military or political actions.
In particular, the CCP’s “trial in absentia,” despite the limited practicality of its implementation, is a high-profile avowal and is intended to deter supporters of Taiwanese independence.
The government should strongly respond to China’s legal provocation, adhere to the basic principles of international law and strengthen cooperation with the international community to form a joint force to resist China’s legal bullying. In particular, the government should emphasize the illegality of the “guidelines” and seek support from international judicial institutions to ensure that the basic rights of Taiwanese are not infringed upon.
The “guidelines,” which are undoubtedly part of China’s policy toward Taiwan all along, aims to further suppress Taiwan’s independent voice through legal means. This legal warfare tactic not only threatens the basic rights of Taiwanese, but also poses a serious obstacle to the peaceful development of cross-strait relations.
The CCP already has general and vague domestic legislation such as the National Security Law and the Counterespionage Law, and now there are “guidelines” against Taiwan. This would not only aggravate tensions between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, but might also put the safety of Taiwanese and visitors in China under threat.
In particular, the vagueness and ambiguity of these laws provide China a convenient excuse to arbitrarily cook up charges and suppress dissent.
China’s newly promulgated “judicial guidelines on imposing criminal punishments” is undoubtedly legal bullying of Taiwan and its people. These “guidelines” not only violate the basic principles of international law, but also pose a serious threat to the basic rights of Taiwanese. The government should respond sternly and strengthen cooperation with the international community to jointly resist China’s legal bullying and safeguard Taiwan’s democracy, freedom and international status.
Gong Lin-dong is a research fellow who focuses on the Chinese Communist Party.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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
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
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
RSS