China’s Taiwan Affairs Office on June 21 issued “judicial guidelines on imposing criminal punishments” for “die-hard” supporters of Taiwanese independence, in collaboration with its Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security and Ministry of Justice. It is based on its “Anti-Secession” Law, the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC.
The “guidelines” set out strict conviction and sentencing standards for “Taiwan independence” behavior. This new law is not only another step in China’s expansion, but also shows its extreme stance on the Taiwan issue.
The “guidelines” show that China is intensifying its legal warfare and is trying to suppress Taiwan’s independent voice through “extraterritorial application of domestic criminal jurisdiction.” This move is clearly to weaponize its criminal jurisdiction, aimed at political repression through the legal system.
China has expanded the definition of “the crime of secession” to include initiating and establishing Taiwan independence organizations, planning or formulating relevant action plans, and promoting a referendum or trying to change the legal status of “Taiwan being a part of China.”
In the “guidelines,” China stipulates punishments such as life imprisonment, fixed-term imprisonment of more than 10 years and even the death penalty for people who play major roles in Taiwanese independence activities or those who are heavily involved.
This approach is undoubtedly a blatant challenge to the basic principles of international criminal law, especially the power to arrest, issue arrest warrants and trial in absentia for “persons outside its jurisdiction.”
The definition of “Taiwan independence” in the “guidelines” is very vague — any attempt to create “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” in the international community, any behavior that “distorts or falsifies the fact that Taiwan is part of China” in any field through their job in education, culture, history or media is considered a crime.
Such a vague legal definition not only provides a legal basis for China’s suppression of Taiwan, but also facilitates the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attempt to further suppress freedom of speech and political dissent.
However, these behaviors are protected by international human rights laws such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international law expert Song Cheng-en (宋承恩) said. China’s “guidelines” clearly violate international human rights treaties.
In particular, the prosecution involves Taiwan’s external relations and international cooperation, and might affect foreign nationals. This shows that China intends to further isolate Taiwan through legal means and crack down on any international forces that support Taiwanese independence.
The international community should severely condemn and boycott China’s legal bullying. This kind of legal suppression is a means for the CCP to satisfy the nationalist sentiments within its borders and provides a legal cover for its subsequent military or political actions.
In particular, the CCP’s “trial in absentia,” despite the limited practicality of its implementation, is a high-profile avowal and is intended to deter supporters of Taiwanese independence.
The government should strongly respond to China’s legal provocation, adhere to the basic principles of international law and strengthen cooperation with the international community to form a joint force to resist China’s legal bullying. In particular, the government should emphasize the illegality of the “guidelines” and seek support from international judicial institutions to ensure that the basic rights of Taiwanese are not infringed upon.
The “guidelines,” which are undoubtedly part of China’s policy toward Taiwan all along, aims to further suppress Taiwan’s independent voice through legal means. This legal warfare tactic not only threatens the basic rights of Taiwanese, but also poses a serious obstacle to the peaceful development of cross-strait relations.
The CCP already has general and vague domestic legislation such as the National Security Law and the Counterespionage Law, and now there are “guidelines” against Taiwan. This would not only aggravate tensions between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, but might also put the safety of Taiwanese and visitors in China under threat.
In particular, the vagueness and ambiguity of these laws provide China a convenient excuse to arbitrarily cook up charges and suppress dissent.
China’s newly promulgated “judicial guidelines on imposing criminal punishments” is undoubtedly legal bullying of Taiwan and its people. These “guidelines” not only violate the basic principles of international law, but also pose a serious threat to the basic rights of Taiwanese. The government should respond sternly and strengthen cooperation with the international community to jointly resist China’s legal bullying and safeguard Taiwan’s democracy, freedom and international status.
Gong Lin-dong is a research fellow who focuses on the Chinese Communist Party.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS