An army officer and a suspected spy were arrested and questioned on Monday, while four others involved in the case were released on bail, the High Prosecutors’ Office said.
Lawyer and former prosecutor Weng Wei-lun (翁偉倫) said that the case differs from previous espionage cases, which primarily involved retired military personnel who were recruited abroad and who accepted gifts in exchange for information. Beijing is increasingly “reaching into Taiwan” and targeting active military officers, he said.
The situation might reveal that Beijing is not fully confident in its ability to occupy Taiwan militarily, and wants to gain a better grasp of Taiwan’s missile installations and other defensive capabilities to gain an advantage in a potential military conflict. Conversely, this also means that China could be preparing for conflict.
This possibility is supported by the increasing frequency and scope of China’s military drills in and around the Taiwan Strait in recent years. Given the increasing risk of a military conflict with China, it is imperative that no leniency be shown in espionage cases — particularly those involving members of the armed forces or the government.
Japan’s Nikkei newspaper on Feb. 28 quoted an anonymous source as saying that up to 90 percent of Taiwan’s military retirees have spent time in China, where they provided information to Beijing in exchange for money. The Ministry of National Defense at the time denied the report, but even if the number of traitorous retirees were half as many as claimed, the threat to military secrets would still be daunting.
If money is the main motivator for military retirees to commit treason, then active military personnel would likely be similarly motivated to commit such acts. One recent case involved a suspected spy who cased pawnshops frequented by military personnel to identify those with money problems who would be most susceptible to recruitment for espionage.
Clearly, Taiwan would be unable to compete with China using money to ensure the loyalty of military personnel, so the alternative is to make the punishment for spying severe enough to be a deterrent.
Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲), director of the Institute of National Defense and Security Research’s Division of Defense Strategy and Resources, in May said that military spies in Taiwan are given an average prison sentence of 18 months, compared with the average sentence of 19 years for similar offenses in other democracies.
Some people found guilty of endangering the nation have even been given suspended sentences, Deputy Minister of Justice Tsai Pi-chung (蔡碧仲) said.
CTBC Business School Department of Business and Economic Law associate professor Chen Tsung-chien (陳重見) suggested that the problem might stem from Taiwanese judges’ poor understanding of national security issues, and suggested that a specialized court should try all national security cases.
Regardless of how cases are tried, Taiwan needs legislation that adequately defines espionage-related offenses, and that stipulates heavy mandatory sentences for all violations.
Those aspiring to commit treason have little to lose and much to gain. If the Chinese government offers members of Taiwan’s armed forces significant compensation for spying, and puts the money into an account in China where it is beyond the reach of Taiwan’s judiciary, then little reason exists for someone not to risk one or two years in prison knowing they have a great deal of wealth waiting for them when they get out.
If prospective traitors were facing the possibility of 10 to 20 years in prison and of being permanently barred from leaving Taiwan, as well as close financial scrutiny, they would be much less motivated to spy for China and risk being caught.
The government needs to be heavy-handed in dealing with spies before it is too late, or it risks the entire military becoming compromised in the face of growing efforts by China to infiltrate Taiwan.
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 last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS