The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on Tuesday said it had taken measures to prevent espionage by party members, after a former staffer was allegedly discovered using a cellphone with a Chinese spying app.
Former DPP staffer Huang Chu-jung (黃取榮) and four other former party members allegedly gathered information on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) while working for the government.
DPP spokesman Justin Wu (吳崢) said the party is requiring notification from its officials before they leave the country and to report upon return, increasing officials’ understanding of national security and conducting background checks of all new party members.
Investigating the background of prospective party members should be a given. This is true for anyone who would gain access to confidential information, but should also be true for junior party members. The CCP usually uses low-level officials or military personnel to establish a network of people who are privy to sensitive information.
The efficacy of informing recruits about the illegality and risks to national security of working with the CCP would depend on their motivations. Entry-level officials and staffers would not be well-paid, and they might be ideologically conditioned, making them prime targets for the CCP. The best approach would be to ensure that there are clear paths for career development for military and public service recruits, and to convey those opportunities when they are recruited. It should also inform recruits that acts of sedition could result in jail time and a lifetime exclusion from public service employment.
Placing conditions on the international travel of DPP members might deter contact with CCP members abroad, but the DPP has limited capabilities to investigate who staffers interact with when they are outside Taiwan, particularly in China.
It could ban staffers from traveling to China outright, but that is also unlikely to be effective. Much like how Americans visit Cuba by flying there from Mexico or Canada, despite a US tourism ban on Cuba, Taiwanese could fly to China from Japan or a neighboring country. It could still require disclosure of foreign travel and contacts with Chinese nationals, but this would be more of a formality than an effective measure for preventing collusion. Also, it would be of limited benefit to prevent DPP members from visiting China if those of opposition parties could still do so.
What the government could do instead is to use artificial intelligence (AI) to track changes in people in the military’s or public service’s patterns of travel, economic activity and daily routines, as well as changes in their access to information or contacts. Such activity could be flagged for a follow-up by senior staff or, in the case of egregious changes in behavior, national security officials.
Commenting on a ban on exchanges between Taiwanese universities and three Chinese universities, the Mainland Affairs Council on Tuesday said that the schools were among “multiple channels” that the CCP uses to “attract and absorb Taiwanese.”
The ban, which went into effect on Feb. 20, applies to Huaqiao University, Beijing Chinese Language and Culture College and Guangzhou-based Jinan University, where Huang studied.
The ban is really a moot point, because all businesses and universities in China are under the administration and influence of the CCP to some degree, even if the CCP does not always exert its control directly.
Authorities generally aim to control the extent of cross-strait exchanges, like opening a water tap only slightly to avoid a flood. The problem is that the CCP has its hand in every single exchange that takes place with Taiwan. The more exchanges that take place, the harder it is to keep the deluge at bay. The government should use AI to the best extent possible, and scrutinize all cross-strait exchanges.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS