By Kristy Cho 張亞柔
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) last month sentenced Taiwanese activist and Taiwanese National Party cofounder Yang Chih-yuan (楊智淵) to nine years in prison. Yang’s case shows that China wishes to suppress political activists and organizers inside Taiwan. Yang once organized a political group to promote the concept of “one country on each side [of the Taiwan Strait],” mainly advocating for Taiwan’s sovereignty and independence. This position is in direct opposition to Beijing’s “one China principle.”
Yang was arrested in China in August 2022, and in April last year was charged with “separatism,” according to the CCP’s “Anti-Secession” Law. His case has brought a sharp response from Taiwan, criticizing Chinese authorities’ use of vague legal language to carry out its unjust ruling against Yang, and using the ruling to strike fear into Taiwanese.
The CCP in 2005 rubber stamped its “Anti-Secession” Law into existence, aimed at trying to forestall a Taiwanese declaration of formal, de jure independence or the implementation of any “separatist” activities.
The content of the law is vague, and the standards for defining a supposed crime are by no means clear, which has led to its abuse by the CCP. Party authorities are using this type of vague legal caprice to suppress and whisk away dissidents, even to the extent of prosecuting them for activities conducted overseas.
Yang’s political activities were mostly carried out within Taiwan, and he never actually crossed into China to carry out any obviously “separatist” activities. Clearly, the CCP’s legal interpretations have already stretched far beyond the bounds of its jurisdiction.
If China were to take over Taiwan, the CCP would use similarly opaque legalese to carry out political suppression of far more Taiwanese than just those with a background like Yang’s. Taiwan is a diverse and free society. If the CCP handed down rulings on the illegality of opinion using the standards of its “Anti-Secession” Law, an integration of Taiwan into China’s legal system would see anyone who advocates for Taiwan’s sovereignty or carries out Taiwan independence-related activities facing the extreme likelihood of being defined as “Taiwan separatists.” This would not only stifle Taiwan’s political diversity, it would render Taiwanese unable to freely express their thoughts and opinions.
Taiwanese should realize the basic differences between the legal systems. In China, the rule of law is subject to political or party interference, and the CCP can use the legal system as a tool to suppress differences of opinion. Taiwanese who travel to China need to be especially mindful of their own words and actions, even within Taiwan, to keep themselves from unwittingly infringing on sensitive political topics, particularly those related to discussions of Taiwan’s sovereignty or independence.
The government should remind the public to carefully evaluate the necessity of travel to China, and remain aware of possible risks if they decide to go through with travel plans. Yang’s plight is a wake-up call for Taiwanese that the tension between our government and China’s is not just a matter of those who are part of the political echelons — this strain has extended into everyone’s daily life.
Yang’s case casts into sharp relief China’s severe suppression of Taiwanese political workers, using vague legal language to attempt to extend China’s jurisdiction to Taiwan. The CCP is abusing its own “Anti-Secession” Law to force people into a post-unification scenario, where similar laws could be used to mute Taiwan’s diverse political voices, and even arbitrarily charge Taiwanese with the so-called crime of supporting “Taiwanese independence.” Taiwanese must be clear on the differences in the legal systems, ask themselves about the risks of traveling to China, and pay attention to what they have said and done to keep themselves from running into unjust treatment by China due to their political stances.
Kristy Cho is a writer.
Translated by Tim Smith
