China's People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) is set to pass an anti-secession bill next month. This piece of legislation is based on Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law, the preparations for which led to the demonstration of nearly 1 million people in Hong Kong on July 1 two years ago.
The protesters' main concern was the extension of Chinese legislation into Hong Kong, and included three aspects: The first was that any Hong Kong association belonging to an organization banned in China could be banned in Hong Kong. The second aspect was that it introduced to Hong Kong laws on "sedition," "treason," "subversion" and "illegally publishing state secrets," which threatened freedom of speech. The third aspect was that the article dealing with secret interrogation would have brought China's opaque way of dealing with problems and its judiciary's complete disregard for law and regulations to Hong Kong.
Following the same line of reasoning, China has its own interpretation of what constitutes secession, an interpretation prone to impromptu changes. China's rule by individuals and its political intervention in the judiciary means that it can pin the "secession" crime on Taiwan if it so pleases, and that it can pin it on any of its own citizens. It could even be wielded as a weapon in a domestic power struggle.
If China can apply its anti-secession legislation to Taiwan, then other Chinese laws could of course also be applied. Taiwan would then lose its judicial rights as well as its national sovereignty, something that the government and opposition must face head on. If they don't, Taiwanese living in China, regardless of whether they support the pan-blue or the pan-green camp, could be sentenced for violating the anti-secession law, should China pass it.
The all-pervasive corruption among Chinese officials means that any Taiwanese may be deemed to be in violation of the anti-secession law for simply offending an official. They may even be blackmailed by greedy officials. Even those who do not violate any laws in China could have a crime pinned on them for actions taken outside Chinese territory.
Between September 2002 and July 2003, China spent almost a year debating Article 23 with the people of Hong Kong. The result was a strong local counter-reaction, partly because the consultation period was too short, and the government of the Special Administrative Region had to revoke the bill. China learned its lesson, and prepared the anti-secession legislation aimed at Taiwan and China's minority peoples behind closed doors. No one knows the contents of the legislation, which makes it impossible to respond with persuasive arguments or let the international community know where its dangers lie.
China is also fast-tracking the law to avoid problems -- the CPPCC standing committee reviewed the bill late last year and is planning to pass it in March, after a mere three months.
In Hong Kong under "one country, two systems," no one is ready to accept Chinese legislation violating the "two systems" principle, so how could sovereign and independent Taiwan, which opposes the "one country, two systems" model outright, accept the anti-secession law? The strange thing is that apart from Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
Because China as adopting a closed-door, fast-track approach, the international community has not attached the same importance to this issue as it did to the Article 23 legislation. The US and Japan are the only countries who have said anything, when, in fact, the law poses a threat to China's neighboring countries as well.
It is well known that China is fond of saying either that a given region has been part of Chinese territory "since ancient times," making unification a Chinese responsibility, or that the Chinese people are the ancestors of the people in a given region, which therefore cannot be separated from China. The Han people only began moving to Taiwan 300 to 400 years ago.
Following the above logic, the historically more ancient Koreas, Vietnam, Singapore and Japan could also be targeted by the anti-secession law. A few years ago, there was a rumor saying that the Chinese people were the ancestors of the American Indians. That would make even the Americas part of Chinese territory "since ancient times."
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The US Department of Defense recently released this year’s “Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.” This annual report provides a comprehensive overview of China’s military capabilities, strategic objectives and evolving global ambitions. Taiwan features prominently in this year’s report, as capturing the nation remains central to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) vision of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” a goal he has set for 2049. The report underscores Taiwan’s critical role in China’s long-term strategy, highlighting its significance as a geopolitical flashpoint and a key target in China’s quest to assert dominance
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
The Legislative Yuan passed legislation on Tuesday aimed at supporting the middle-aged generation — defined as people aged 55 or older willing and able to work — in a law initially proposed by Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Legislator Wu Chun-cheng (吳春城) to help the nation transition from an aged society to a super-aged society. The law’s passage was celebrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the TPP. The brief show of unity was welcome news, especially after 10 months of political fighting and unconstitutional amendments that are damaging democracy and the constitutional order, eliciting concern
What do the Panama Canal, Greenland and Taiwan have in common? At first glance, not much. The Panama Canal is a vital artery for global trade, Greenland is a sparsely populated yet strategically significant territory, and Taiwan is a democratic stronghold in the Indo-Pacific. Yet these three are bound by an unsettling parallel: The hubris of powerful leaders who see them as pawns in a geopolitical chess game, disregarding the sovereignty and dignity of their people. Recently, US president-elect Donald Trump sparked international outrage with his refusal to rule out using military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and