China's cross-border suppression of Taiwan involves throwing feces, violent attacks, and causing car accidents. Kuomintang legislator Weng Xiaoling strongly questioned in the Legislative Yuan today that besides the CCP, are there no other external forces? The government’s observation of foreign forces is too narrow! She even said, is it the CCP that is engaged in cognitive warfare? Or the DPP government? Huang Yihao, a victim of cross-border repression who was sitting in the Legislative Yuan, was dumbfounded and smiled bitterly.
The Judiciary and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Legislative Yuan today invited the Ministry of Justice, the Mainland Affairs Council and other relevant ministries to make a special report on "the infringement of cross-border suppression on our country's democracy, rule of law and people's basic rights and the legal prevention mechanism" and to prepare questions. Huang Yihao, a cross-talk actor who was brutally suppressed by the Chinese Communist Party's cross-border suppression because of his cross-border jokes mocking "Xi Dajian", also attended the event in person.
Weng Xiaoling asked, is there any clear legal definition of the keyword "cross-border repression" that we are talking about now? Liang Wenjie, deputy chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, pointed out that there is currently no unified definition, and "cross-border repression" evolved from the international "Transnational Repression". But this is a phenomenon that exists in fact. Although it has not been legalized yet, it exists in fact.
Weng Xiaoling asked, could the MAC clarify the definition of cross-border suppression? Liang Wenjie emphasized that cross-border suppression as we understand it refers to an aggressive intervention from abroad, launched by foreign countries or overseas hostile forces or their agents, to carry out various forms of intimidation or coercion against individuals or communities.
Weng Xiaoling questioned, what are "hostile foreign forces"? Although there are conceptual provisions in the law regarding hostile foreign forces, has the government ever published a list of what hostile foreign forces are?
When answering questions, Liang Wenjie said that the government has not. However, in several judgments, judges pointed out that the CCP is a hostile foreign force. Everyone knows who Taiwan’s only external hostile force is, and we don’t need to sort this out.
Weng Xiaoling choked back, you are referring to the CCP, but besides the CCP, aren’t there other foreign forces? The observation of foreign forces is too narrow, and I think this is not a responsible approach.
In addition, Weng Xiaoling said when questioning the Ministry of Justice that in this case of Mr. Huang Yihao, everyone has discussed the judicial investigation case of cross-border suppression. What she wants to emphasize is that the New Taipei District Prosecutor's Office is now investigating cases involving foreigners planning fake car accidents in Taiwan to injure specific people. Among them, they may be suspected of being funded by Chinese nationals to use fake car accidents to seriously injure people who criticize the Chinese Communist regime. Article 161, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that prosecutors shall bear the burden of proof for the defendant’s criminal facts. Did the prosecutors rely on words such as "reasonable suspicion" or "not ruled out" in this case? In the absence of a clear legal definition, did the prosecutors arbitrarily and unilaterally set the tone of the case? Is this a cross-border suppression by the CCP?
Weng Xiaoling even said, after all, does receiving instructions from mainland Chinese people mean receiving instructions from the Chinese government or the Communist Party? There are still some gaps in between. The cross-border suppression mentioned here is under the instructions of people outside the country. Are the people outside the country equivalent to the instructions of the CCP?
Justice Minister Zheng Mingqian said that the New Taipei District Prosecutor's Office worked very hard to investigate this case, and traced the source to the fact that the Chinese Communist Party used cross-border means to direct Chinese lawless elements to use violent means to suppress it. The court has ruled on detention in this case, and the court will only detain the person if it is quite clear.
Weng Xiaoling claimed that this would mean that as long as any mainland Chinese person violates Taiwan's relevant regulations in the future and is considered a perpetrator, we can presume that it will be suppressed across the border? Zheng Mingqian said that this part needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The court will review any application for compulsory punishment, and the court will support it; if the prosecutor does not provide evidence, the judge will reject it at the first level.
Weng Xiaoling choked, the government is shouting to guard against China’s cognitive warfare, but is cognitive warfare actually the CCP? Or the DPP government? The CCP’s cross-border threats do indeed exist objectively, and the government should take strict precautions against them. However, the DPP government cannot simply create a sense of fear and discredit all internal policy doubts, social protests and opposition voices as "local collaborators" or an extension of the CCP's suppression.
Facing Weng Xiaoling's series of speeches, Huang Yihao in the gallery frequently smiled bitterly; Weng Xiaoling even asked, when the government blames all opinions against the rulers on the infiltration of enemy countries, it is using fear to kidnap voters and using camp division to tear apart society. Isn't it another form of cognitive warfare against the Taiwanese people, or even a kind of domestic suppression?
Cheng Ming-Chien retorted that Taiwan is a democratic society governed by the rule of law, with freedom of expression. In fact, these cases of cross-border suppression, including the previous cases and the case of Huang Yihao being injured, were all intervened by foreign forces. It can be seen that hostile foreign forces cannot tolerate freedom of speech, and we must protect Taiwan's democratic and free life.
