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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS