The new and improved Anti-Secession Law?
I'm supposed to be writing an article or sleeping. But I thought I'd write quickly about the big story in today's Taipei Times. The story reports on a Liberty Times story, which itself references an anonymous source quoting intelligence supposedly gathered from China-so take it with a grain of salt.
China is thinking of changing the Anti-Secession Law so that "Taiwanese nationals who advocate Taiwanese independence or engage in separatist activities" can get fined or jailed in mainland China, HK, and Macao. (But it's OK-the "Mainland Affairs Council says it's watching China.")
I have to say, this is a really smart move on China's part. Off the top of my head, I can say that three types of people will be discouraged from engaging in "separatist activities": Businessmen, people who didn't care all that much in the first place (who might be pushed in either direction), and people like my friend C.
C is very reasonable, and committed in a very reasonable way to very reasonable things, and for that reason is a good person to be involved in an often very unreasonable movement. My friend C is a Blue-leaning Taiwanese woman from a Blue family, and has lots of relatives in mainland China. I really admire the clarity of her thinking, which comes from having followed her own logic to conclusions that differ from the ideology attributed to any political or ethnic group in Taiwan.
These types of people are really important, but they also tend to be less zealous. I met C on the Formosa Foundation's Ambassador Program, which could certainly fall under "separatist activities." Under the amended Anti-Secession Law, would she still have participated in this program? I haven't ask her, but with her relatives in mainland China, there is definitely a really good reason for her to say no. I have to say that if I were in her position, that would be my answer. Not that she would necessarily get into trouble for the Ambassador Program, but you never know.
I liked the Ambassador Program, but I admit that it represents some very stupid and some very ugly things in addition to all that was good about it. Without people like C, no one will take things like the Ambassador Program seriously-or the larger movement it is a part of. Yes, Taiwan has gotten fucked over eight ways from Sunday, and it is not the fault of the people living here now, and that bites, but you can't walk around waving green flags and yelling about 228 and expect anyone to listen. People listen to C, who can choose her battles an articulate her points convincingly, and who recognizes that different points of view can exist simultaneously and that doesn't mean that one person is a fascist or a racist or a communist.
And that's who it seems to me is targeted most by this move. Of course, C is a special case because she has family in mainland China, but then so do lots of people. And even those who don't might want to go to Hong Kong some day.
China is thinking of changing the Anti-Secession Law so that "Taiwanese nationals who advocate Taiwanese independence or engage in separatist activities" can get fined or jailed in mainland China, HK, and Macao. (But it's OK-the "Mainland Affairs Council says it's watching China.")
I have to say, this is a really smart move on China's part. Off the top of my head, I can say that three types of people will be discouraged from engaging in "separatist activities": Businessmen, people who didn't care all that much in the first place (who might be pushed in either direction), and people like my friend C.
C is very reasonable, and committed in a very reasonable way to very reasonable things, and for that reason is a good person to be involved in an often very unreasonable movement. My friend C is a Blue-leaning Taiwanese woman from a Blue family, and has lots of relatives in mainland China. I really admire the clarity of her thinking, which comes from having followed her own logic to conclusions that differ from the ideology attributed to any political or ethnic group in Taiwan.
These types of people are really important, but they also tend to be less zealous. I met C on the Formosa Foundation's Ambassador Program, which could certainly fall under "separatist activities." Under the amended Anti-Secession Law, would she still have participated in this program? I haven't ask her, but with her relatives in mainland China, there is definitely a really good reason for her to say no. I have to say that if I were in her position, that would be my answer. Not that she would necessarily get into trouble for the Ambassador Program, but you never know.
I liked the Ambassador Program, but I admit that it represents some very stupid and some very ugly things in addition to all that was good about it. Without people like C, no one will take things like the Ambassador Program seriously-or the larger movement it is a part of. Yes, Taiwan has gotten fucked over eight ways from Sunday, and it is not the fault of the people living here now, and that bites, but you can't walk around waving green flags and yelling about 228 and expect anyone to listen. People listen to C, who can choose her battles an articulate her points convincingly, and who recognizes that different points of view can exist simultaneously and that doesn't mean that one person is a fascist or a racist or a communist.
And that's who it seems to me is targeted most by this move. Of course, C is a special case because she has family in mainland China, but then so do lots of people. And even those who don't might want to go to Hong Kong some day.