It speaks volumes about what is considered normal in Taiwan that a retired general — Kao An-kuo (高安國) in this case — could call on military officers not only to surrender to China, but also to overthrow the nation’s democratically elected government, and Taiwanese could throw up their hands and say: “We’ve heard this all before.”
Kao regularly posts low-budget YouTube videos in which he is sitting behind a microphone in his military fatigues criticizing the government and spreading disinformation, for example, on alleged deaths after COVID-19 vaccinations and that the government was sacrificing Taiwanese lives by rejecting Beijing’s offers of Chinese vaccines.
Kao’s call on the military to surrender was posted to YouTube on June 7, and it appears to have gone largely under the radar, only drawing comment in the past few weeks, with Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Lai Jui-lung (賴瑞隆) saying that the retired general’s words amount to treason and contravene the National Security Act (國家安全法).
The criteria for treason — if Taiwan were a normal country — seem to be met by Kao’s statement, even if it is difficult to take seriously a lone man in his fatigues spouting extremist antipathy in a poorly lit makeshift studio.
However, it is far from clear whether prosecution for treason is viable based on current legislation, not least because it refers to China as “the mainland area” and does not consider it a foreign country.
Kao seems to be acting as Beijing’s agent, but the Anti-infiltration Act (反滲透法) only concerns activity on foreign soil or activity in Taiwan to influence elections on behalf of a foreign government.
Article 107 of the Criminal Code lists “inciting a person in the armed services to neglect his duty, desert, mutiny, or commit a breach of discipline” as a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, but only under the condition that the nation is at war or war is imminent.
Lawyer Huang Di-ying (黃帝穎) has said that articles 153 and 155 of the code would be applicable to Kao’s case. The former concerns inciting another person to commit an offense, for which the accused would be liable to a sentence of “not more than two years, short-term imprisonment or a fine of not more than thirty thousand [New Taiwan] dollars”; the latter concerns somebody “who incites a person in the armed services to fail to execute his duty, commit a breach of discipline, desert, or mutiny,” and carries a jail sentence of six months to five years. These punishments are quite lenient for treason.
Kao seems harmless in his videos with low production values, but he is also involved with other groups, such as the Blue Sky Action Alliance, which enjoys the support of China Unification Promotion Party (CUPP) founder Chang An-le (張安樂), a former gang leader with more influence and a bigger organization behind him than Kao.
During a political forum in Shanghai last month called “Chinese Compatriots Across the Strait: Joining Hands to Realize the Chinese Dream,” Chang also said that he would call on military commanders to surrender on the day China annexes Taiwan by force, although it is legitimate to ask why he thinks they might listen to him.
The alliance, the CUPP and another pro-unification group, the Concentric Patriotism Association, are regularly suspected of being behind public disturbances. The groups’ funding can allegedly be traced back to China.
Cases involving individuals like Kao, with their limited influence and funds, might not seem to be cause for concern, but they highlight the impotence of Taiwan’s anti-treason laws. Organizations such as the CUPP are potentially more problematic. However, the government’s efforts need to focus on investigating those overseas who are funding individual and group efforts at destabilizing the nation.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of