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
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