The Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau intends to investigate allegations of Chinese infiltration through a third-party committee, sources said on July 4.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is increasingly using Taiwan’s democracy and freedom against it, recruiting Taiwanese for espionage and interfering in Taiwan’s elections through influence campaigns, bureau Director-General Chen Pai-li (陳白立) said.
Suspects in such trials are regularly acquitted due to lack of evidence and difficulty tracing funds back to the CCP.
Then on Tuesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators passed a bill that removed restrictions on group tours to China and prioritizes Chinese tourists and tour groups wanting to visit Kinmen, Penghu and Lienchiang (Matsu) counties.
It would be difficult for customs and immigration authorities to know whether Chinese visitors have ties to the CCP, and investigators would be hard-pressed to track the movements of all Chinese visitors for obvious logistical and legal reasons.
A CCP member visited the Institute for National Defense and Security Research — a Ministry of National Defense think tank — last year as part of a delegation, said the Liberty Times, sister paper of the Taipei Times.
Prioritizing Chinese tourism to Taiwan’s outlying islands could compromise the integrity of those islands, which are important to Taiwan’s defense strategy. That importance is evident in the stationing of US Army Special Forces personnel in Kinmen and Penghu, which was confirmed by Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) on March 14.
Despite prevailing concerns about espionage, KMT legislators Chen Hsueh-sheng (陳雪生) and Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) on July 4 proposed amendments to the Offshore Islands Development Act (離島建設條例) that would allow Chinese firms to tender for industrial development and public construction projects in outlying counties.
The amendments would have given unfettered access in the counties to Chinese employees of firms who win public tenders. Fortunately, the bill was halted when TPP caucus whip Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) said that his party would not support it.
The committee, which the Investigation Bureau established jointly with the National Security Bureau, the Mainland Affairs Council and the Military Intelligence Bureau, must be aggressive in tackling espionage cases to prevent the CCP from making inroads. Taiwanese collaborators must not be acquitted nor shown leniency, as this would only encourage others to work for the CCP, knowing they could do so with impunity.
Senior prosecutors said the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) does not need to be revised to pursue spying cases, but prosecutors need clearer targets. This might be true, but judicial authorities and investigators should also seek to understand why judges are so reluctant to prosecute those facing allegations of spying for the CCP.
The failure of Taiwan’s laws and the Constitution to identify China as a foreign power contributes to the difficulty in trying espionage cases involving the CCP. That suggests that laws might indeed need to be amended. However, if the problem lies in a lack of evidence, then the responsibility would fall on investigators. Hopefully, that is something the new committee can help rectify.
Regardless of how it is achieved, prosecutors and investigators must seek to punish those who compromise Taiwan’s sovereignty and national security by acting on behalf of the CCP. The US, Japan and other countries might be willing to assist Taiwan in the event of a conflict, but Taiwan must also demonstrate the resolve to protect itself.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS