|
|
|
DPP Plays China-Phobic Card in 2020 Election,
Pushes Anti-Infiltration Bill |
|
|
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Caucus of the Legislative Yuan forced an "anti-infiltration bill" through second reading. The KMT Caucus withdrew in protest.
(Photo from: United Daily News) |
|
|
With DPP Mobilization, Anti-infiltration Bill Sent for Second Reading; KMT Counters with Anti-Annexation Bill
United Daily News, November 29, 2019
The Legislative Yuan considered the “Anti-infiltration Bill” sponsored by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Caucus yesterday, and both the Kuomintang (KMT) and the DPP mobilized their legislators to vote. The KMT Caucus refused to endorse the bill and introduced an “Anti-annexation of the Republic of China Bill” instead. Due to the absence as protest of the KMT Caucus at the plenary sessions of the Legislative Yuan, the “Anti-infiltration Bill” was sent directly to the second reading without objection. The bill will go into party consultation led by the DPP Caucus.
DPP Takes Two-Pronged Approach to Pass Bill Before Year-End
This session of the Legislative Yuan will end on December 31. After taking into account that the party consultation requires one month waiting period thus will push the third reading until the end of year, the DPP Caucus has decided to take the approach of “suspending the committee meetings and continuing the plenary sessions.” Under this two-pronged approach, the members of the Legislative Yuan will still have time to campaign in their constituencies. DPP Legislator Wang Ting-yu said that he would do his utmost to pass the third reading of the anti-infiltration bill before the end of this legislative term.
Will the KMT Introduce a “Bring President Tsai to Justice” Clause?
The KMT Caucus has published “Anti-annexation of the Republic of China Bill” as a countermeasure and refused to endorse the anti-infiltration bill. The anti-annexation bill has 15 articles including the definition of hostile organizations and the inclusion of the offense of treason of the criminal codes. The bill also has different level of punishment for abetting hostile organizations to disrupt social order and interfering in elections, etc. One draft article stipulates that any civil servant who makes speeches that lead others to believe that the name of the country has been changed shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years: The president who commits the same offense shall be investigated for his(her) criminal responsibilities. This has been regarded by the DPP members as the “bring President Tsai to justice” clause.
The KMT Caucus has asked for the DPP Caucus’ support to send the anti-annexation bill together with the anti-infiltration bill directly to the second reading. However, the KMT draft was not included in the agenda of the plenary sessions and therefore was not processed yesterday.
To make sure the anti-infiltration bill will be sent directly to the second reading, the DPP members got together in front of the Legislative Hall at 7 AM. Once they entered the Hall several members were dispatched to guard the speaker podium in case that the KMT Caucus would boycott the legislative process.
According to the draft anti-infiltration bill, any person who accepts instruction, takes commission or receives funding from the source of infiltration and makes political donation to influence the behavior of elections, recalls or referendums shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years; in addition thereto, or a fine not more than NT$5 million. Any person who by violence, coercion or other illegal means disrupts social order or obstructs legal assembly or parade shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year but not more than seven years, short-term imprisonment; in addition there to, or a fine not more than NT$5 million.
From: https://udn.com/news/story/11311/4196224
|
|
|
The Kuomintang (KMT) Caucus of the Legislative Yuan proposed an "anti-annexation of the R.O.C. bill" to counter bullying by the DPP.
(Photo from: United Daily News) |
|
|
Anti-Infiltration and Anti-Annexation in a Funhouse Mirror
China Time Editorial, December 1, 2019
Although President Tsai Ing-wen’s opinion poll figures continued to rise and are clearly ahead of KMT presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) continues to leverage the sense of national doom in a move to maximize the return from its Communist-phobic “anti-China” policies in the final stage of the presidential election with more than one month left . DPP’s sole purpose is to make sure President Tsai would win.
Right after Australian media had broken out the suspected spy scam, the Tsai administration took a series of steps. Not only did the prosecution promptly summon two mainland Chinese “suspects” before grounding them, but the DPP caucus in the Legislative branch tabled the “Anti-Infiltration Bill” and referred the bill to the Plenary Session for Second Reading debate within only one day. The DPP strived to railroad the bill before the presidential election. In order to counter the DPP's smear campaign and the said bill, the KMT quickly launched a counter-attack by popping up the "Anti-merger Bill". In connection with "fake legislation and genuine election campaigns,” the KMT’s ambush attack triggered an offensive and defensive stand-off between the blue and green camps.
The provisions of the “Anti-Infiltration Bill" categorized “governments, political parties or their organizations, institutions, groups, or persons assigned by governments and parties that are essentially controlled by" so-called "foreign hostile forces" as "sources of infiltration". Those whose acts instructed, entrusted, or funded by sources of infiltration shall be penalized. This kind of all-inclusive bill can be said to be more exorbitant than the ”Spy Prosecution and Eradication Regulations” when Taiwan was under Martial law between 1949 and 1987. According to the ambiguous and vague standard of the “Anti-Infiltration Bill", among those Taiwanese who are doing business, or pursuing school exchanges and NGO exchanges across the Taiwan Straits, some could be punished with a prison sentence at any time on the basis of the likes and dislikes of the Authorities.
To put it bluntly, the ”Anti-Infiltration Bill” was not only a smear campaign to discredit KMT before the election polls, but also a tack to create a chilling effect on the freedom to exchange with China. In an attempt to monopolize the right to voice and right of initiative after the election, the DDP sought to threaten pan-Blue politicians and supporters not to mingle with China. Against this background, the cross-strait relations will continue to deteriorate under the DPP- espoused Taiwan independence platform.
Just because of the paranoid political intentions of the DPP, the minority party KMT had no choice but to table the “Anti-Merger Bill” to open up a new front in its fight against the majority DPP in the legislature. According to the said bill, a definition of what constitutes national public security shall be distinctly ascertained while more severe penalties be imposed, in contrast with the “Anti-Infiltration Bill”.
In fact, there were only three differences between the two bills: First, the "Anti-Annexation Bill" clearly denoted the word "state" or "my state" for the "Republic of China". The KMT’s intention was to highlight the contradiction that the DPP was only concerned about the "my state" rather than the "Republic of China" being infiltrated. Second, regarding the definition of hostile forces, the DPP-tabled "Anti-Infiltration Bill" aimed to target the "overseas" hostile forces, while the KMT's "Anti-Annexation Law" included those who are to wipe out the R.O.C. both "at home and abroad".
Last but not least, the most noticeable and controversial issue is that the “Anti-Annexation Bill” imposed the restrictions on the freedom of speech of public servants, including the president. The explanatory notes of the “Anti-Annexation Bill” revealed that "the concept and definition of sovereignty of the R.O.C., influenced by some people with ulterior motives, has been fluid and uncertain, which has caused a serious threat to the sovereignty of the R.O.C. and its democratic constitutional order." Furthermore, under the Bill, “the opinions expressed by the public servants which are enough to make others mistakenly acknowledge that official appellation of this country had been changed shall be sentenced to imprisonment of less than five years." The provision was aptly associated with legal actions brought against President Tsai and Taiwan independence advocates.
Any reasonable person with a slight legal sense can detect that the "Anti-Annexation Bill" is actually a product of irony and self-contradiction. The purpose of the "Anti-Infiltration Bill" was to neutralize the Chinese Communist Party while the "Anti- Annexation Bill" was to oppose Taiwan independence. However, the DPP accused the "Anti-Annexation Bill" of political maneuver, white terror and restriction of freedom of expression, the Bill proved to be unconstitutional as a result. The DPP was also set up by falling into the KMT traps due to the fact that the KMT capitalized on the "Anti-Annexation Bill" to highlight how the DPP compromised the legal system, labelled its opponents as communist and violated human rights.
For the KMT, to roll out the "Anti-Annexation Bill" is like a magic mirror for revealing goblins. It has pierced the DPP's absurdity and double standards with one shot. It can be regarded as a tactical victory. But KMT's success was only a dose of sarcasm. It was not the right way due to the fact that as a great party, the KMT did not display its leadership for the future development of Taiwan, as well as it lacked responsibility to uphold and sustain higher democratic values. The fierce battle between two major parties has made the national system, democratic politics, and professional legislative qualities being distorted in a funhouse mirror. This is the saddest loss and crisis in this republic.
From: https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20191130002919-262101?chdtv
|
|
|
This Government is Self-Destroying Taiwan’s Democracy
By Wang Chien-chuang
United Daily News, November 30, 2019
How come so many coincidences? Shortly after the breakout of so-called “China spy Wang Liqiang case”, Mr. Xiang-xin, a mainland Chinese visitor whom Wang alleged as his spy boss, was detained, together with his wife, prior to leaving Taiwan. The ruling Democratic Progress Party (DPP) Legislature Caucus, echoing the “spy incident”, immediately unfroze the draft of “Anti-Infiltration Bill” which has been mothballed for two years, and straightly send it to second reading in the Legislature Council. The Investigation Bureau, Ministry of Justice (MJIB), and Military Police Headquarters (MPH), both governmental agencies, made two espionage alert films, and telecasted at the same time. How can the general public not suspect while so many coincidences happened all-together within a few days?
One of the symptoms of democracy collapse is that the ruler weaponizes the governmental agencies. The MPH-made film shows that the spy been caught by military police is a bald-headed middle-age male whose attires and look is very similar to that of the opposition presidnetial candidate Han Kuo-yu. The MJIB-made film insinuates that the suspect is a boss of a television station which has been infiltrated by a hostile exterritorial power. Both films made by governmental agencies were a product of ruler’s political preference. Governmental agencies’ catering to ruler’s preference outweighed the duties of constitutional function, and even worse, to function as ruler’s tools to oppress the opposition. That is a typical weaponization of governmental agencies and strong proof of the collapse of Taiwan’s democracy.
More terrifying evidence is that DPP Caucus in recent years made a series of self-destructing legislations. The fundamental function of a Congress is, on behalf of the people, to oppose the abuse of administrative power, to watchdog government spending, and to safeguard fundamental human rights. The DPP Caucus, on the contrary, more abusive than Administrative Branch, made numerous bills infringing fundamental human rights.
The DPP Caucus utilized Hong Kong’s “Anti-extradition Bill Movement” as an instrument to push its “Anti-China” policy. Only within two months, from May to July this year DPP Caucus worked incessantly to complete the “Security Five Bills” which greatly extend the administrative power, and deprive the fundamental rights of free will of express and property rights. Is such law-making, which is not only a contraction but a deprivation of human rights, proper for a legislator?
More incredibly, these bills which shrink and deprive the fundamental human rights were mostly billed by DPP legislators. In normal practice during the session, bills been reviewed are those from the Administration Version. However, recent bills been reviewed were only Caucus Versions. In other words, DPP Caucus initiates national policies and the Administration Branch follows. It is rare, and odd in democracy.
Take the “Anti-Infiltration Bill” as an example. It is a Bill crucial to national security policy. If there is an urgent need to make a special Bill to prevent Infiltration from hostile foreign power, it should be proposed by the Administration Branch. It is because only the DPP administration grasps the relevant agencies to trace and find out details of foreign Infiltration. Only the Administration has ways and means to make countermeasures to prevent foreign Infiltration. Unfortunately, the Administration failed to do what it is supposed to do. Instead, it leaves DPP Caucus willfully to propose a poor-quality draft of bill.
Is it necessary to make a “Anti-Infiltration Bill”? Take a look of the relevant Bills currently in force, the source of Bill regarding political contributions and electoral interference, all can be found in the already passed so-called “five National Security bills”. Do DPP Caucus members fail to know that the Anti-Infiltration Law is redundant? If they don’t know, it is ignorant. If they know, and insist to propose the Bill, it is ill-intentioned.
Furthermore, the so-called “source of Infiltration” in the draft “Anti-Infiltration Bill”, is almost all-inclusive. The definition of the wording of “instruct”, “entrust”, and “sponsor” in the Draft, are all ambiguous. In addition, according to our Constitution, which does not recognize People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a “foreign country”, it may be considered as unconstitutional if the so-called “hostile exterritorial power” defines as the PRC. This bill draft, which regarding fundamental human rights, is all about terms of imprisonment and penalty and fines. It is, all the way through out, a violation of the principle of clarity of law. The draft itself remains doubtful of its constitutionality. How dare the DPP Caucus to propose such a Bill, and intent to arbitrarily pass is as a law? How dare the President with a Ph.D. degree in Bill intent to promulgate and implement such a Bill?
China’s threat is real. It is necessary to prevent mainland Chinese infiltration. Yet ”anti-China” policies should not go beyond reason. The relevant Bills are already too numerous and self-destructive. The consequence is a self-destruction in which Taiwan’s democracy and fundamental human rights are sacrificed in the “anti-China fever”.
Paul Krugman, winner of Nobel Prize in Economic Science and a
New York Times opinion columnist, said that “
If you aren't worried about the future of American democracy,
you aren't paying attention.” This advice shows his deep worry of the collapse of American democracy. Well-said. This worry is also applicable to Taiwan today.
From: https://udn.com/news/story/7340/4197706
|
|
|
November 26: Wang Liqiang claimed to the Australian media that the China Innovation Investment company absorbed him to become a spy. The Investigation Bureau, Ministry of Justice, and Immigration Bureau, Ministry of the Interior, stopped Xiang Xin, chief executive of China Innovation Investment, and his wife Kung Ching, from departing Taiwan for Hong Kong for an “administrative probe.” Xiang has denied all allegations, claiming that the trip was only to negotiate business and buy a luxury home. Xiang has sought legal assistance.
November 27: The operation permits of 10 coal-fired generator units of the Taichung Power Plant will expire in February next year. The government issued a letter demanding that the power plant relax the 10-percent coal-fired limit. In other words, coal usage of 11 million tons will be relaxed to 12 million tons. Taichung City Mayor Lu Shiow-yen, Changhua County Magistrate Wang Huei-mei, and Nantou County Magistrate Lin Ming-chen criticized the central government for reversing environmental protection efforts.
November 28: The Military Police posted on Facebook a photo from a unit drama in which a spy bald and wearing a blue shirt was arrested and suppressed. The appearance resembled Kuomintang (KMT) presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu, with a slogan “Who will be the winner in this game?” The image went viral on the Internet, raising questions about administrative neutrality. While the image was later deleted, controversy remains.
November 29: Kuomintang (KMT) presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu, along with vice presidential candidate Simon Chang and Han’s team of policy advisors, announced 26 platforms, promising to abolish pension reform policies and rebuild the institutions for retirement care. Han also criticized the unprecedented amount of fake polls, fake news, and defamation in the election season and promised to break the status quo of depression, suffering, and confusion in Taiwan.
November 30: Australia’s The Daily Telegraph featured a front-page story entitled “China Spy Farce” citing Australian intelligence officials that the authorities “highly suspect” that Wang Liqiang is truly a high-level Chinese spy. It is believed that Wang has provided false testimony in an attempt to obtain political asylum or residency, and that he may only have access to low-level intelligence information, which is not particularly valuable to the Australian intelligence.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 | | |
| |
|
|
|
|
