Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days.
The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant to reunify by force?”
Liu’s comments contravened the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), which stipulates that authorities can revoke a person’s marriage-based residence permit if they “are potentially harmful to national security and the stability of society,” the agency said.
While many people in Taiwan praised the NIA’s decision, Liu protested it on her channel and questioned if “freedom of speech” is protected in the nation.
In her remarks, she echoed Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Wang Hung-wei (王鴻薇), who criticized the government, saying that people would question Taiwan’s “freedom of speech” and “rule of law.”
Several pan-blue political commentators also supported Liu and what they called her “freedom of speech,” including political talk show host and former KMT vice presidential candidate Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), who asked why advocating for “Taiwanese independence” is allowed, but supporting “reunification” is not. Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the KMT said the punishment was “unnecessary.”
Meanwhile, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Chen Binhua (陳斌華) said the decision showed Taiwan’s suppression of dissent.
However, they all are missing the point. Liu did not contravene the law because she expressed her personal opinion about a political issue. It was also not because supporting unification with China is illegal, but because she advocated for another country to use military force to annex Taiwan.
President William Lai (賴清德) on Thursday last week said that remarks “advocating for war, hatred or violence” that hurt the country and its people are not protected by “freedom of speech,” and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also explicitly prohibits them.
Liu used social media to advocate that China annex Taiwan by force — behavior that “asserted eliminating Taiwan’s sovereignty, which is unacceptable by the Taiwanese society,” the NIA said on Saturday.
Her residency permit was revoked, and she cannot apply for a new one for five years, it said, adding that it made the decision to “protect national security and the stability of the society.”
Moreover, Liu’s residency was revoked, but she was not forced to remove her videos, be silent on the issue, or deprived of her fundamental human rights, nor was she arrested, detained, forcibly deported or imprisoned — as countries suppressing freedom of speech, such as China, do.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and the lifeblood of democratic societies, but it is not absolute. It has legitimate limitations for the protection of others’ rights and to ensure public safety, as well as consequences for contraventions.
In this case, Liu either genuinely supports unification and overlooks the substantial harm posed by a Chinese military invasion to Taiwan’s people, properties and the democratic system, or advocates it to profit from online viewership from Chinese followers on Douyin (抖音). Whatever the reason, she clearly crossed the line with her comments.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS