When retired army colonel Hsin Peng-sheng (辛澎生) was found guilty of spying for China, the prosecution was dissatisfied with his six-month prison sentence and appealed the case.
However, he was found not guilty by a court of appeal, and he has been acquitted again in a retrial.
The judges’ reasoning was that there are no facts or evidence to prove that Hsin developed a spying organization on behalf of China.
Unsurprisingly, the judges of the High Court’s Kaohsiung branch took a simplistic view and followed the letter of the law, because they are not worldly wise and do not know much about how such spying organizations are developed.
After coming into contact with the Political Work Department of China’s Central Military Commission, Hsin frequently accepted invitations to banquets, and even introduced his friends to personnel of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.
Face-to-face meetings, building rapport and socializing regularly are how mobsters build their organizations. To make a good impression, the mobsters do a favor for someone, then that person introduces them to their friends — that is how the gang grows.
Whether Hsin was given any tasks to carry out should be thoroughly investigated.
Despite being a high-ranking officer, Hsin lacked the self-discipline to avoid suspicion of espionage, but instead repeatedly contacted the other side and accepted dinner invitations. Then, he got more people involved by “telling his friends about the good food.”
This obviously went beyond simple friendship or love for his compatriots. Rather, it was aimed at growing the organization by attracting other weak-willed people with military connections.
Thinking about it from another angle might make it even easier to understand. Nobody would think it appropriate for judges to accept dinner invitations from people involved in the cases they try in their courtrooms.
However, it would not be proper for them to meet and chat with such people, or even introduce them to other court colleagues or parties to the case.
Hsin’s case is no different.
Chen Chi-nung is a former reserve political warfare officer who works in the field of education.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS