|
EDITORIAL: Chung’s
case is the tip of the iceberg
Taiwanese Falun Gong practitioner Bruce Chung (鍾鼎邦) was released and allowed to
return home on Saturday after being detained in China for more than 50 days for
activities that China said damaged national security. The Mainland Affairs
Council (MAC) and Straits Exchange Foundation attributed Chung’s release to the
cross-strait crime-fighting and mutual judicial assistance agreement and
insisted that the mechanisms set up under the agreement allowed the two sides to
negotiate. The government will undoubtedly tout the release of Chung as a
successful example of cross-strait cooperation and goodwill. In reality, what
the case really illustrates is the wayward nature of China’s legal system and
the secretive nature of cross-strait dispute resolution.
Chinese authorities arrested Chung on June 18 for allegedly helping hijack a
Chinese TV station’s signal several years ago and posing serious risks to
national security. The MAC and the Ministry of Justice said the two sides were
in contact about Chung’s situation and that China abided by the judicial
assistance agreement and informed Chung’s family members of his whereabouts
within 24 hours of his detainment.
However, both the council and the Chinese authorities refused to discuss the
case and Chung’s detainment did not raise much attention until Falun Gong
practitioners launched protests against Chung’s detention during the
cross-strait talks last week. When asked whether the Chung case was mentioned
during the talks, council Chairperson Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) failed to answer
directly, but said that the government had raised the issue with Beijing several
times.
Government officials later privately acknowledged that, following the talks,
China had agreed an under-the-table deal approving Chung’s release, as part of
which it was agreed that freeing him would avoid shifting the attention of the
cross-strait talks. It is a great irony that while it was still refusing to
release Chung, China signed the cross-strait investment protection agreement and
promised to safeguard Taiwanese businesspeople in China.
Taiwan failed in its attempt to put personal safety issues at the core of the
agreement: Measures to protect the personal safety of Taiwanese businesspeople,
including a notification system that requires Chinese authorities to inform
family members of the arrest of any Taiwanese businessperson within 24 hours of
them being detained, are now only included in a supplementary consensus
document. The exclusion of the 24-hour notification system combined with China’s
newly amended criminal litigation law, which stipulates that authorities do not
need to inform family members of arrests of suspects involved in national
security or terrorist acts, raises further questions about China’s willingness
to implement the agreement.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration also failed to defend the rights
of Taiwanese in cross-strait disputes. Chung’s wife met with her husband in
China before his release thanks to the assistance of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元), rather than government officials.
Chung’s family members have only sought to ensure that he returned home safely.
It is unacceptable for the Ma administration to brag about Chung’s release. The
under-the-table deals and covert family visits demonstrate that even with the
investment protection pact, Taiwanese will continue to suffer threats to their
personal wellbeing.
Chung’s case is not an exception. Many Taiwanese have experienced similar
situations. The government should work to sign an agreement on personal safety
and expand the scope of protection to Taiwanese students in China and other
Taiwanese who work and live there. More importantly, Taiwan should press harder
on China to respect human rights. Only when China takes the issue of human
rights seriously can we trust it to implement any cross-strait agreements.
|
