In April, Lam Wing-kei (林榮基), a former manager of Hong Kong’s Causeway Bay Books, was attacked by several Taiwanese, who threw red paint at him in Taipei. In October, Aegis, a Hong Kong-supporting restaurant in Taipei’s Gongguan (公館) area was vandalized with feces.
The violence has extended to Tainan, with a Taiwanese throwing eggs at the Tainan Theological College and Seminary, where an anti-extradition exhibition was being held by Hong Kongers.
STRESS-INDUCED?
The suspect, surnamed Lee (李), said after being detained that he was under stress and in a bad mood, so after buying some eggs that night, he just decided to throw them at the seminary as he was passing by to vent his anger.
However, a look at a Google map shows that Lee could have “vented his anger” in many places near his East District (東區) home.
Although he said that he had originally planned to throw the eggs at a vacant plot in the West Central District (中西), he returned to the East District four hours later to throw eggs at the seminary’s library.
Few Tainan residents would find Lee’s account believable.
If we link the three incidents, they might not be so simple. Although police immediately detained the suspects in all three incidents, the legal penalties for “liquid attacks” with paint, feces or eggs is insignificant, and if convicted, sentences can be commuted to fines.
COMMUTATIONS
Even for the most serious incident, the attack on Lam, the Taipei District Court ruled in the first instance that the defendants’ punishments could be commuted to fines — as expected.
For those external forces hostile to this nation, the cost of inciting helpers to engage in this kind of activity is low, but such activities can be intimidating.
If a solution is not found, similar incidents might one day become daily routine.
Article 1 of the Anti-infiltration Act (反滲透法), which took effect on Jan. 15, states that the purpose of the law is to prevent infiltration and interference of external hostile forces, ensure national security and social stability, and maintain the Republic of China’s (ROC) sovereignty, freedom, democracy and constitutional order.
However, a review of the Judicial Yuan’s archives shows that no ruling involving the act has yet been made.
This shows that the act — which was condemned by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) as “dreadful and hateful” — is just a “paper tiger” that has been shunted aside by the courts.
Therefore, its stated function of “preventing infiltration and interference of the external hostile forces” has yet to be given full play.
AMENDMENT
To resolve this clear and urgent threat, 17 lawmakers, including Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Kuo Kuo-wen (郭國文), have proposed a draft amendment to Article 6 of the act, which would impose heavy penalties on people who deliberately commit such minor offenses as the above-mentioned incidents.
This plan deserves our support, but seven months since the draft was proposed, it remains frozen in a legislative committee waiting for an initial review.
This is unfortunate. Surely the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee and the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee should work harder to see the measure passed.
Lo Cheng-chung is director of Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
RSS