In the wake of Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu's (
Beijing's intention is to create special courts in which anyone can be prosecuted for "separatist activity," to be interpreted as the court sees fit. We have always known that the Chinese judiciary is little more than a series of kangaroo courts in which people are punished for having run foul of authority. There is no question of evidence and no question of innocence. We are also aware of the undistinguished but lamentably large role the courts have played in the suppression of political dissent and "thought crime" of any kind.
The function of these special courts will be to try any officials from either side of the Strait who are deemed to have "not acted appropriately in opposing Taiwanese independence." As to what Taiwanese independence is, China appears to not want to stipulate this in the law but leave it to the court and its political masters to decide on an ad hoc basis. It is not clear who might be covered by the law other than officials but the guiding principles for the law's drafting obtained by Wu suggest that it will cover as wide a base as possible. "Anything other than unification is going to be defined as independence and therefore anybody who speaks out in support of Taiwan's government might be charged with this kind of crime," Wu said.
The implications need to be seriously considered in Taiwan and elsewhere.
Basically, no member of the government will be able to go to China for fear of being arrested under the law. The same goes for any Democratic Progressive Party legislator or local government official, and could also be applied to almost anybody who is appointed to speak on the government's behalf.
Given that the maintenance of Taiwan's independence is the wish of the majority of Taiwanese and is supported by their government, nobody who speaks for that government or represents the real views of Taiwanese people will be able to go to China without risking arrest.
Foreign academics might be at risk, or members of think tanks which support self-determination for Taiwan, of which the US has a considerable number.
Finally, we might consider the large number of Taiwanese now living in China. As soon as the law passes, they will be targets for shakedown artists with official connections -- and given the wealth of the China-based Taiwanese community, there will be many. You can easily imagine the kind of scenario -- "give us a stake in your enterprise or we will denounce you and you'll end up in a labor camp in Qinghai."
If what we have been led to believe is true, then after the law passes, almost no Taiwanese will be safe in China, nor will any foreigner who has ever associated with a pro-independence organization -- such as this newspaper for example.
If just stepping on Chinese soil means running the risk of a stint of "reform through labor" in the Chinese gulag, then forget about cross-strait negotiations: The cross-strait Cold War is about to enter a real ice age.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS