Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days.
The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant to reunify by force?”
Liu’s comments contravened the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), which stipulates that authorities can revoke a person’s marriage-based residence permit if they “are potentially harmful to national security and the stability of society,” the agency said.
While many people in Taiwan praised the NIA’s decision, Liu protested it on her channel and questioned if “freedom of speech” is protected in the nation.
In her remarks, she echoed Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Wang Hung-wei (王鴻薇), who criticized the government, saying that people would question Taiwan’s “freedom of speech” and “rule of law.”
Several pan-blue political commentators also supported Liu and what they called her “freedom of speech,” including political talk show host and former KMT vice presidential candidate Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), who asked why advocating for “Taiwanese independence” is allowed, but supporting “reunification” is not. Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the KMT said the punishment was “unnecessary.”
Meanwhile, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Chen Binhua (陳斌華) said the decision showed Taiwan’s suppression of dissent.
However, they all are missing the point. Liu did not contravene the law because she expressed her personal opinion about a political issue. It was also not because supporting unification with China is illegal, but because she advocated for another country to use military force to annex Taiwan.
President William Lai (賴清德) on Thursday last week said that remarks “advocating for war, hatred or violence” that hurt the country and its people are not protected by “freedom of speech,” and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also explicitly prohibits them.
Liu used social media to advocate that China annex Taiwan by force — behavior that “asserted eliminating Taiwan’s sovereignty, which is unacceptable by the Taiwanese society,” the NIA said on Saturday.
Her residency permit was revoked, and she cannot apply for a new one for five years, it said, adding that it made the decision to “protect national security and the stability of the society.”
Moreover, Liu’s residency was revoked, but she was not forced to remove her videos, be silent on the issue, or deprived of her fundamental human rights, nor was she arrested, detained, forcibly deported or imprisoned — as countries suppressing freedom of speech, such as China, do.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and the lifeblood of democratic societies, but it is not absolute. It has legitimate limitations for the protection of others’ rights and to ensure public safety, as well as consequences for contraventions.
In this case, Liu either genuinely supports unification and overlooks the substantial harm posed by a Chinese military invasion to Taiwan’s people, properties and the democratic system, or advocates it to profit from online viewership from Chinese followers on Douyin (抖音). Whatever the reason, she clearly crossed the line with her comments.
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
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS