|
|
|
President Tsai Orders Time Limit for Anti-Infiltration Bill,
Return to Authoritarian Rule? |
|
|
Former President Ma Ying-jeou stated that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is eager to pass the anti-infiltration bill due to election interests.
(Photo from: United Daily News) |
|
|
President Sets Time Limit to Pass Major Anti-Infiltration Law! Taiwan Returns to Authoritarian Rule
China Times, December 18, 2019
The Procedure Committee of the Legislative Yuan yesterday set December 31 for reading agenda of the draft Anti-Infiltration Law, with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus endeavoring to complete the third reading then.
In a seminar, many experts, legislators and Taiwanese businessmen criticized the law having yet been discussed in public hearings, neither consulted within the Interior Committee of the Legislative Yuan, but straightforwardly ordered by President Tsai Ing-wen to pass within time limit. All of this has revealed that the law is dictatorial in nature. The ambiguity of wordings in the law might not only implicate many families and relatives but also massacre innocent victims. The Anti-Infiltration Law bill, which violates procedural justice, fully reflexes electoral manipulation, and defines terms ambiguously, is tantamount to a return of martial law.
Taiwanese Businessmen and Students Prone to be Implicated by Ambiguous Definitions
China Times and
Want Daily held a Seminar on Anti-infiltration Law, participants including former Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay, Kuomintang (KMT) Legislator Tseng Ming-chung, Professor Chen I-hsin of Chinese Culture University, KMT legislator-at-large nominee Charles I-hsin Chen, and editor-in-chief Wang Cho-chung, and many Taiwanese businessmen and scholars.
Luo pointed out “No offense is committed if not expressively stated by the law” was the important principle of criminal law but the Anti-infiltration Law defined its wordings ambiguously. She further pointed out that mainland China was led by the party, there were party secretaries in all its institutions. Therefore, once the Anti-Infiltration Law was to be passed, all pure and simple academical and charitable exchanges might be subject to punishment. What is worse, all ordinary people might be implicated together with their families and relatives, innocent people might also be massacred. This was even more horrible than the white terror.
Professor Chen said that President Tsai went to the length of claiming the completion of the legislation of this law on December 31, this was downright abusing tyrannical executive right to castrate the legislation right of the legislative; the whole process was a testimony of dictatorial president overriding executive and legislative rights. He was worried if the law was to pass, it might devastatingly impact the tourism industry and pure mainland tourists might be charged with “infiltration”.
“Green Terror” Decimating Cross-Strait Exchanges
“This is green terror” said Tseng. He thought that when the Legislative Yuan passed five national security laws in July last year, President Tsai claimed “the completion of the last piece in the puzzle”, but now she said Anti-infiltration Law was the last piece of the puzzle. “There is no doubt about it. This is a downright manipulation of election campaign” Tseng emphasized; he thought any legislation concerning national security was of vital importance, this Anti-infiltration Law without prior consultation in the Interior Committee, neither an edition of its kind presented from the Executive Yuan, was not compliant with procedure justice.
The draft Anti-Infiltration Law defined “foreign hostile forces” as “any country or group advocates a non-peaceful means to jeopardize our national sovereignty.” Tseng commented that if even “advocate” were prohibited, this would clearly violate the free speech.
Harsh Penalty Unprecedented in the World
To this, Chou His-wei, deputy campaign manager for Han and former Taipei County Magistrate, expressed to
China Times: During Taiwan’s martial law period before the 1980s, only behavior or action of espionage such as using violence or coercion means intending to subvert national land and change state system could be convicted; but now under the five national security laws and Anti-Infiltration Law amended and enacted by the Tsai administration, anyone is suspected to have interacted with hostile groups, received contribution funding can be reported by any public institution without going through prosecution and investigation procedure to collect evidences, the National Security Agency can send him to court for conviction. The sentence can be as long as seven years and a penalty of NT$50 million (about US$1.6 million) to NT$100 million (about US$3.3 million). The penalty is over 10,000 times that during the martial law period, indeed unprecedented in the world.
From: https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20191218000507-260118
|
|
|
President Tsai Ing-wen has asked the DPP majority in the Legislative Yuan to pass an anti-infiltration law by December 31.
(Photo from: United Daily News) |
|
|
Against Public Opinion, Anti-Infiltration Erects Iron Wall in the Taiwan Strait
China Times, December 21, 2019
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus of the Legislative Yuan fought hard to send the Anti-Infiltration Bill for a third reading on December 31. Though highly contentious, the DPP, however, bent on having its own way.
There are five causes for concern, including ambiguous definition, procedural injustice, electoral manipulation, obstruction of cross-strait private exchanges, and disregard of public opinion. The DPP arbitrarily erected the iron curtains across the Taiwan Strait that may implicate innocent people and get them penalized.
As for “ambiguous definition”, Article 2, regarding “sources of infiltration” is a good case in point. It refers to organizations and institutions supervised and managed by foreign hostile forces. As is well-known, the party overrides the government in China. Party organizations do exist in businesses. Therefore, defining pure civic exchanges or business interactions becomes elusive.
Article 9 indicates those who are “instructed, entrusted, funded or reroute the instructions, entrust or fund” by sources of infiltration are against the law. What is the definition of “rerouting instructions?” Businessmen or students who travel frequently to China may inadvertently make contacts with mainland people with party or government affiliations. They may step on the red line, or may be framed.
As for the haggling of procedural justice, the Executive Yuan didn’t put forward its own proposal; neither was the bill discussed at Domestic Affairs Committee of the legislature. Rather, the bill was sent directly for a Second Reading. President Tsai went so far as to predicate the bill to be passed on December 31, glaringly overriding the power of the legislature.
In terms of “electoral manipulation,” the DPP, in the name of national security, has pushed forward a series of laws such as “Chinese Communist Surrogates Act,” “Five Laws on National Security,” “Law on National Intelligence Work,” as well as the Anti-Intelligence Bill. By so doing, the DPP’s tactics is to create a sense of national doom as a leverage to win elections. Once the Anti-Infiltration Bill is passed, it will create a sense of uncertainty on the minds of the people. Thereby the government can intimidate, obstruct, prohibit, or penalize cross-Strait exchanges, to the effect of chilling the interchanges with mainland China.
The draft bill has sustained widespread criticisms from prominent political figures including former President Ma Ying-jeou, former Vice President Annette Lu, People First Party (PFP) Chairman and presidential candidate James Soong. PFP vice presidential candidate Sandra Yu, though a political novice, aired her discontent on this issue, indicated that the bill is not well thought of nor thoroughly deliberated. She appealed to the DPP to suspend the enactment, saying that “this is not a request. It is the voice of the people.”
Has the self-claimed “democratic” and “progressive” party really heard the voices of the people?
From: https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20191221000529-260118
|
|
|
Anti-Infiltration Act Brings Taiwan Back to Martial Law Period
By Liao Yuan-hao
National Policy Foundation Commentary, December 13, 2019
Recently, some people have always put in their mouths the phrase “defend Taiwan’s democracy.” But, in fact, they have been taking measures that are anti-democratic. From five national security laws to the Foreign Forces Influence Transparency Act, these laws all reek of “White Terror” in the authoritarian period. The Anti-Infiltration Act proposed by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus in the Legislative Yuan further pushes us back to the martial law period.
The martial law period was imposed to defend Taiwan. But how come “White Terror” appeared as a result? It is because at the time both sides of the Taiwan Strait were at war. The government made use of the threat from Communist China and the fear of the Taiwan people for a mainland Chinese invasion and promulgated laws like the Punishment of the Rebellion Act and Article 100 of the Criminal Code to suppress its critics. The freedom fighters at the time would be imprisoned or even executed should they criticize the government, even though they were anti-communism and supported the Republic of China government, which withdrew to Taiwan in 1949.
At the time, the threat of communist invasion and infiltration was much more real, serious and immediate. The victim in the film entitled “Back to School.” Liao Yuan-hao, is, in real life, a communist agent. But even if the likes of Liao did not instigate armed riots or steal state secrets, they were severely prosecuted. For in time of war, anyone from mainland China is an enemy, and anyone who cooperates with the enemy is a traitor.
Surprisingly enough, after the ending of the martial law period for 28 years, the DPP, who used to pride themselves on promoting democracy, proposed the Anti-Infiltration Act with the same logic. The ordinary people may find “stemming communist infiltration” not a bad thing, but they have no idea how horrible the said Act really is. It is comparable to the laws promulgated in the period of “White Terror.”
For one thing, Liao, the leading actor in “Back to School,” is a victim of White Terror as defined by the DPP. But iao is the head of the communist unit in Keelung City. His national identity is far from that of the DPP.
For another, the Anti-Infiltration Act defines almost all Communist China’s public and private organizations as “sources of infiltration.” Even “those organizations, agencies, groups, or individuals which are established, supervised, managed or controlled” by the local governments in mainland China or communists are also defined as “sources of infiltration.” As such, all the Taiwanese businessmen and students in mainland China, together with Taiwanese involved in the academic and social exchanges with mainland China, are interacting with “sources of infiltration,” and hence are all subject to criminal penalty as prescribed by the said Act. In this way, who dares to do exchanges with the mainland?
What is worse, anyone who receives “directions, commissions, or financial supports” from “sources of infiltration,” is prohibited to involve in any election activities or comments. These have created a chilling effect on those Taiwanese who wish to interact with the Chinese mainland.
The DPP is, in fact, making use of the Anti-Infiltration Act to consolidate its own power, severe exchanges between the Taiwan Straits, and hold in contempt freedom and the rule of law.
Is this the promotion of democracy? Are Taiwanese people, who have fought for democracy all these years, willing to go back to the period of White Terror? How different is this McCarthyism instituted by the DPP from that in the Martial law period?
From: https://www.npf.org.tw/1/21979
|
|
|
December 17: Former President Ma Ying-jeou was found not guilty in a leaks case by the High Court, but Control Yuan member Chen Shih-meng wanted to investigate if the judge had abused his discretion and will interrogate Taipei District Court judge Tang Yueh. In a statement, the Judges Association of the Republic of China condemned Chen, arguing that Control Yuan members should not intervene with the judiciary. Otherwise, it would open the door for political interference in the judiciary. The association is also initiating a nationwide petition to resist judicial intervention.
December 18: The Kuomintang (KMT) found another shadow company which may be run by Yang Hui-ju, who is involved in an Internet army scandal, and also contracting government business. Since 2016, Yang’s company has won tenders to multiple levels of government, securing NT$28.3 million (about US$940,000) in public funds. Both companies deliberately emphasized in their tenders that they helped campaign for Tsai Ing-wen.
December 18: After President Tsai Ing-wen took office in 2016, the Special Investigation Division (SID) of the Supreme Prosecutors Office was abolished, making it impossible to follow up the corruption case of former President Chen Shui-bian. In a televised presentation of platforms, KMT presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu called for re-establishing the SID and immediate launch an investigation on the prospective NT$880 billion (about US$29.2 billion) budget of the Forward-Looking Infrastructure Plan, prospective NT$2 trillion (about US$66.3 billion) budget for wind power, and the current $330 billion (about US$10.9 billion) debt of the Kaohsiung City government contributed by the former mayoral administration.
December 19: Dozens of peanut farmer representatives from Yunlin came to Taipei to protest the Council of Agriculture (COA), Executive Yuan, which previously promised that it would allocate NT$2 billion (about US$66.3 million) to purchase peanuts at NT$40 per catty (about US$1.3 per 600 grams). But in fact, the COA only acquired partially from pro-DPP peanut farmers, but even they have not received payment. The peanut farmer representatives believe that the COA has not stayed true to its promises, and they are planning another large-scale protest on December 24.
December 21: With the presidential election counting down to three weeks, pro-Han and anti-Han demonstrations gathered in Kaohsiung, and both sides claimed hundreds of thousands of participants. According to police estimates, the pro-Han demonstration had twice the number of supporters as the anti-Han administration. The police dispatched some 3,000 officers to maintain public safety, and the marches ended peacefully.
|
|
|
Taiwan Weekly is a newsletter released every week by Fair Winds Foundation, Taipei Forum, and Association of Foreign Relations that provides coverage and perspectives into the latest developments in Taiwan.
The conclusions and recommendations of any Taiwan Weekly article are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the institutions that publish the newsletter.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 | | |
|  |
|
|
|
|
