Apart from the fracas in the legislature last week, two other events warrant attention.
The first is Internet celebrity Chung Ming-hsuan (鍾明軒) and his trip to China.
In his vlog, he talked about how China is a wonderful place, fawning — in exasperated awe — over the luxurious facades of the cities he visited, and how he received a friendly and welcoming reception from some Chinese.
Seeing is believing, and his videos and descriptions immediately invited heated discussion.
The second has to do with Chinese spouses of Taiwanese citizens. On Thursday last week, prosecutors charged Ho Jianghua (何建華), the former chairwoman of the Taipei-based Chinese Women’s Federation -— which advocates for Chinese spouses of Taiwanese — and former secretary Pao Ke-ming (包克明) for accepting funding from the All-China Federation of Taiwan Compatriots, which is part of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee.
They solicited money to form and grow their organization and spread disinformation, among other activities, prosecutors said.
The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office’s court of first instance ultimately found them “not guilty.”
Looking at these two events, several important points must be discussed.
First, from a simple tourism standpoint, Shanghai and Beijing are internationalized Chinese cities. It does not take much effort to see that the two cities are bustling.
Anyone could understand why Chung would share his observations on everything he saw and heard while touring the cities.
Second, the problem is that Chung is not just another tourist. Many of his previous videos mention that he is Taiwanese and that he once loathed China.
Given China’s Counter-Espionage Law and its National Security Law, Chung’s commentaries could land him in a lot of hot water or get him arrested and tried. It would all boil down to whether the Chinese government felt compelled to do so.
China’s Counter-Espionage Law and National Security Law state that activities such as taking a photograph, recording a video, using maps with GPS, searching for official or local business information on the Internet, talking to or holding interviews with locals and participating in religious activities could all be seen as grounds for influencing national security and could lead to arrest and incarceration.
However, there is considerable leeway for these laws.
Chinese authorities did not make things difficult for Chung — this was nothing more than a template created by Beijing to further spread its propaganda.
Chung has unwittingly fallen into an incredibly dangerous trap.
If he keeps “carrying China’s water” and reinforcing its “facade,” travelers going to China might end up copying his behavior and causing themselves a lot of legal pain and punishment.
Third, China’s rule “by” law is not the West’s rule “of” law.
We might be acquitted if we are charged under the National Security Act (國家安全法) in Taiwan, because the nation has a constitutional right to an independent judiciary.
Chinese law and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) have repeatedly asserted that China absolutely cannot adopt a three-body system of government, with a separation of powers and an independent judicial system.
They have also asserted that laws are to be weaponized, that China should actively participate in the formulation of international rules and regulations, and that it should become a promoter and leader of global governance.
If the Chungs of the world contravened China’s laws, they would be arrested and tried there.
Do not be misled into thinking that China’s laws are the same as Taiwan’s, where people can be acquitted or be found innocent.
Taiwan’s national security laws and Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) are imposed based on evidence, but that is a separate conversation for another time.
A country does not define democracy, human rights and the rule of law by how it treats people with the same opinions as those in power, but rather by how it treats those in opposition.
China wants to develop technology, travel and tourism, but each Chinese tourist and person with technical acumen has been cultivated to have the exact same goal as the Chinese government.
It is too late for China to welcome everyone with different opinions.
Of course, China cannot suppress everyone. People should pay attention to those who hold opposing views from the Chinese government: intellectuals, human rights lawyers and international firms that wish to realize corporate rights in China. They have been suppressed, arbitrarily — and indiscriminately — arrested and investigated.
This point is related to an individual’s wealth and status, life and Taiwan’s national security.
The Chung Ming-hsuans of the world would do well to keep all of this in mind.
Carol Lin is a law professor in the Graduate Institute of Technology Law at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.
Translated by Tim Smith
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS