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.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
RSS