In 2020, a labor attache from the Philippines in Taipei sent a letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanding that a Filipina worker accused of “cyber-libel” against then-president Rodrigo Duterte be deported. A press release from the Philippines office from the attache accused the woman of “using several social media accounts” to “discredit and malign the President and destabilize the government.”
The attache also claimed that the woman had broken Taiwan’s laws. The government responded that she had broken no laws, and that all foreign workers were treated the same as Taiwan citizens and that “their rights are protected, including freedom of speech.”
Last week the government announced that the National Immigration Agency (NIA) would revoke the spouse-based residence permit of social media influencer Liu Zhenya (劉振亞), a national of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), who is married to a local. This became a major news story, even making the international media. The NIA investigated reports that Liu advocated annexing Taiwan to the PRC through military force in videos posted on social media, including Douyin (where she has 400,000 followers), YouTube and TikTok. On all three, her account name is Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣).
Photo grab taken from Douyin
The NIA press release said that Liu’s residence permit will be revoked in accordance with Article 14 of the Measures for the Permission of Family-based Residence, Long-term Residence and Settlement of People from the Mainland Area in the Taiwan Area (大陸地區人民在台灣地區依親居留長期居留或定居許可辦法). The NIA said that her calls for military force against the people of Taiwan violate 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).
Liu thus violated specific rules that govern PRC citizens. She will be barred from re-applying for residence within the next five years. The government is giving her time on humanitarian grounds to arrange her family affairs.
UNSETTLING
Photo: Chen Yu-fu, Taipei Times
For an American raised on the US’ radical free speech laws and customs, this case is unsettling in every way. As someone who was in Taiwan for the tail end of the Martial Law era and the subsequent democratization of Taiwan, Liu’s fate has a familiar authoritarian aftertaste. As a foreigner living in Taiwan on a permanent resident visa, with its restrictions on what foreigners can do in local politics, it is chilling. But also, fitting. If my rights are circumscribed, why should she be different?
As a resident of an island nation threatened with mass murder by its neighbor, calls for such violence by public figures are disturbing. It is hard for me to find any sympathy for a person who is calling for the death or imprisonment of my children. Moreover, she does not act entirely as an individual. Liu is a willing performer in that theater of anti-Taiwan propaganda that the PRC fosters in its citizens and supporters, an ecology of violent abuse she is exploiting for clicks.
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION?
Photo: Taipei Times file photo
Yet, shouldn’t I be suspicious that the government is leveraging my emotional response to approve a human rights violation?
To a former blogger like myself who also developed a following in that swirling legal gray area called the Internet, the case and its resolution are discomfiting. With 400,000 followers, isn’t she a (quasi-) media worker, as I was? But, if she is a media worker, doesn’t she have a responsibility to behave as one?
There are often two sets of laws and regulations: one for ordinary foreigners, and one for the neither-fish-nor-fowl citizens of the PRC. The latter laws are sometimes loosely written and circumscribe speech, but in ways that leave the authorities able to interpret them the way they want.
Photo courtesy of the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport
For example, in October last year the government deported two PRC citizens who had harassed pro-democracy demonstrators in Taipei at an event for the people of Hong Kong. One of them was shown on video apparently saying “Taiwan and Hong Kong are part of China.” Both were deported for visa application violations, which had been ignored by the authorities prior to their public behavior.
The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), commenting on the case, said that PRC nationals should not make “statements harmful to Taiwan’s autonomous status” or engage in “acts undermining the nation’s sovereignty,” based on the Regulations Governing the Approval of Entry of People of the Mainland Area into Taiwan Area.
Liu’s remarks clearly violated both of these regulations. The government is on solid ground. Further, it has done this before with PRC citizens. In 2019, visiting PRC “academic” Li Yi (李毅) was deported for plans to make a public speech on the annexation of Taiwan to the PRC, something he had long advocated doing by force. He had been invited by the Chinese Unity Promotion Party (CUPP), the minor, far-right pro-PRC party, to speak at a forum titled “Cross-Strait Peaceful Unification and Development,” in Taichung. He was deported because engaging in political activity while on a tourist visa is forbidden.
Then-premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) stated of the case: “If you come here to advocate unification through armed invasion under the pretext of sightseeing, you are no different from a terrorist.”
There is thus already precedent, specifically targeting this form of propaganda.
RULES ARBITRARILY ENFORCED
Yet, these rules are regularly broken by PRC citizens, in both the virtual and the real world. Other foreigners here also call for the PRC to attack Taiwan, as do pro-PRC Taiwan citizens. Liu’s real crime appears to be that she had an audience, and got reported.
This reaction highlights a problem with Taiwan law enforcement in general that is a likely source of reader discomfort with this case: an illegal behavior becomes commonplace because nothing is done, until something very dramatic is done once. Liu is like a foreign driver who has become used to making an illegal left turn on a certain corner like all the other locals, only to get a ticket the one time the policemen happens to be standing there. That arbitrariness rankles, even if the police are right.
Article 12 of the regulations for PRC citizen entry into Taiwan further stipulates that PRC nationals visiting Taiwan could have their visas revoked if they “engage in inappropriate acts that breach the principle of equality and dignity.” That appears to be vague enough for wide interpretation.
This indicates a problem with due process: as a lawyer friend observed, there is no judicial or independent review of these decisions. An independent review board would give the government further legal and political cover. Usually, in cases like this, an appeal takes place only after the individual has been deported. Very difficult to win such cases.
The China-aligned parties in the legislature will make noise about Liu. Lee Zhenxiu (李貞秀), a PRC spouse and party list legislative nominee for the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), commented: “Today’s Lai government, yesterday’s Hitler; today’s mainland spouses, the Jewish people of the past.”
Deplorably, the United Daily News chimed in to denounce the “green terror” against PRC spouses. Perhaps they will even get Liu a lawyer to fight the deportation.
Too bad the pro-PRC Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and TPP gutted the Constitutional Court.
Notes from Central Taiwan is a column written by long-term resident Michael Turton, who provides incisive commentary informed by three decades of living in and writing about his adoptive country. The views expressed here are his own.
The depressing numbers continue to pile up, like casualty lists after a lost battle. This week, after the government announced the 19th straight month of population decline, the Ministry of the Interior said that Taiwan is expected to lose 6.67 million workers in two waves of retirement over the next 15 years. According to the Ministry of Labor (MOL), Taiwan has a workforce of 11.6 million (as of July). The over-15 population was 20.244 million last year. EARLY RETIREMENT Early retirement is going to make these waves a tsunami. According to the Directorate General of Budget Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS), the
Many will be surprised to discover that the electoral voting numbers in recent elections do not entirely line up with what the actual voting results show. Swing voters decide elections, but in recent elections, the results offer a different and surprisingly consistent message. And there is one overarching theme: a very democratic preference for balance. SOME CAVEATS Putting a number on the number of swing voters is surprisingly slippery. Because swing voters favor different parties depending on the type of election, it is hard to separate die-hard voters leaning towards one party or the other. Complicating matters is that some voters are
Sept 22 to Sept 28 Hsu Hsih (許石) never forgot the international student gathering he attended in Japan, where participants were asked to sing a folk song from their homeland. When it came to the Taiwanese students, they looked at each other, unable to recall a single tune. Taiwan doesn’t have folk songs, they said. Their classmates were incredulous: “How can that be? How can a place have no folk songs?” The experience deeply embarrassed Hsu, who was studying music. After returning to Taiwan in 1946, he set out to collect the island’s forgotten tunes, from Hoklo (Taiwanese) epics to operatic
Five years ago, on the verge of the first COVID lockdown, I wrote an article asking what seemed to be an extremely niche question: why do some people invert their controls when playing 3D games? A majority of players push down on the controller to make their onscreen character look down, and up to make them look up. But there is a sizable minority who do the opposite, controlling their avatars like a pilot controls a plane, pulling back to go up. For most modern games, this requires going into the settings and reconfiguring the default controls. Why do they
RSS