The Ministry of Justice’s release last week of statistics on criminality among Chinese who enter the country legally was a puzzling move.
On Friday, the ministry released a report on crimes committed by Chinese, saying there were too many cases involving Chinese nationals for prosecutors and police to handle. The report, which sounded more like a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) press release, seemed to warn the government off seeking to increase the number of Chinese visitors. Of those Chinese nationals who have entered the country legally, around 26,000 have committed crimes in the last four years alone, the ministry said.
“The negative effect on social order of Chinese committing crimes in Taiwan deserves a high level of attention,” it said.
The report also mentioned that some Chinese nationals in Taiwan might be sent by Beijing on spying missions, with obvious consequences for national security.
At the same time, the statistics show, only 56 Chinese nationals are behind bars in Taiwan.
Although the ministry’s intent was perhaps to inform the government, releasing crime statistics singling out Chinese nationals seemed designed to scare the public at a time when many have high hopes for the economic benefits of pursuing greater cross-strait links. We can expect these statistics to become fuel for the arguments of those who have suggested that opening up to cross-strait tourism could result in a surge in violent crime.
Unfortunately, when crime statistics single out one group, they are easily manipulated. In this case, by discussing the rate of crime among Chinese nationals without including the broader context, the ministry could be perpetuating fears and prejudices about ordinary Chinese people.
The ministry release would seem to imply, for example, that resources at police stations and prosecutors’ offices are overextended because of the presence of Chinese.
Politicians and the media alike often manipulate the public’s fears, which although rooted in legitimate concerns — such as public safety and public health — tend on occasion to exceed the limits of rationality.
That was clear when the Centers for Disease Control, just hours after the arrival of the first cross-strait charter flights, announced that there were no indications that the Chinese visitors were carrying any diseases. An announcement intended to allay public concern can easily have the opposite effect of implying that there is every reason to worry, propagating the idea that Chinese are in fact walking health hazards.
Tainan City Bureau of Health Director Hu Shu-chen (胡淑貞) typified the ridiculousness — and offensiveness — of these fears last month when she suggested the city “disinfect the places where Chinese tourists have passed through.”
Equally offensive was the DPP’s presidential campaign ads depicting the Chinese as uneducated and dirty, with one ad implying that opening up to China would lead to Chinese men urinating in the streets. The ads sought to manipulate voters’ worst fears and prejudices about China to scare them into choosing the DPP on March 22.
The discussion of positive and negative effects of pursuing increased cultural and economic links with China should take the form of a rational, non-alarmist debate. Government officials and agencies have a particular responsibility to present meaningful information in a manner that avoids fueling discriminatory aspects of the discourse.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS