TDB Vol. 2. No. 3: Deportations of Taiwanese Suspects to China Violate Rights of Taiwanese

Several countries have deported Taiwanese fraud suspects to China in recent years, a new trend that undermines Taiwan’s sovereignty and raises issues as to the ability of the suspects to receive a fair trial. Olivia Yang looks at this development.

 

Philippine authorities on Jan. 13 arrested 133 Taiwanese and Chinese suspects in a crackdown on telecom scams. While it remains to be seen where the suspects will be deported, over 500 Taiwanese nationals worldwide have been deported to China since 2014, nearly 300 of them last year alone.

The deported Taiwanese have been suspected of working with telecom or cyber fraud rings in countries including Kenya, Malaysia, Cambodia, Armenia, Vietnam, and Spain.

The Spanish National Court last December made two decisions that granted Beijing’s request for 214 Taiwanese and Chinese fraud suspects to be deported to China.

“The international community, except for those countries with which (Taiwan) has diplomatic relations, consider Taiwan to be part of China and take the view that its independence cannot be achieved unilaterally,” reads the Madrid Court’s written ruling.

While the move was “welcomed” by the Chinese side, Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) “expressed deep regret and dissatisfaction” over the decision.

“[T]he Republic of China (ROC) is a sovereign state. Mainland China must face the fact of the existence of the ROC,” reads a statement from the MAC. “The various tactics used by Beijing to pressure Taiwan in the international arena only increase the resentment of the Taiwan public and are absolutely unacceptable to the people of Taiwan.”

It has yet to be determined how many out of the over 200 suspects arrested in Spain are Taiwanese, said Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), since officials have been unable to visit and identify them.

Beijing’s argument

Countries that have sent Taiwanese fraud suspects to China have cited Beijing’s “one China” — often confused with a country’s “one China” policy — in which Beijing maintains that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. Beijing has also defended the deportations, saying that the victims of the crimes were Chinese citizens, a claim that has been backed by China’s diplomatic allies.

Another argument China uses is that Taiwanese suspects often receive lighter sentences, or none, when sent back to Taiwan.

Twenty suspects arrested in a Malaysian telephone scam case were deported back to Taiwan and then released due to lack of evidence in April 2016. However, after Latvia last year turned down Beijing’s request to send 110 Taiwanese suspects to China, 44 of them on Jan. 20 were charged with aggravated fraud by a Taiwan court.

China, on the other hand, on Dec. 21, 2017 convicted 44 Taiwanese of operating telephone scams from Kenya and Indonesia. Two were sentenced to 15 years in jail, while the remaining 42 received sentences of up to 14 years in jail and fined.

Taiwan’s MOFA has protested against Beijing’s actions and condemned them as violations of human rights, especially in cases like Armenia, where the government “neither released information concerning the case during the investigation nor disclosed the location of the ROC nationals.”

But the objections have had little effect, as overseas Taiwanese suspects are continuously deported to China.

Regarding the 2016 Kenya case, international human rights organization Amnesty International expressed concerns that Taiwanese suspects “face a real risk of human rights violations” when sent to China.

“If deported to China, they could face serious violations of their fair trial rights.There is no doubt Kenya cherishes its relationship with China, but by no means should it sacrifice these individuals’ rights for political expediency, the due process of the law must be respected,” said Victor Odero, Amnesty International’s East Africa Campaigner.

According to the Human Rights Watch 2017 World Report, Taiwanese suspects deported from Armenia, Cambodia, and Kenya, “were given no discernible opportunity to contest their deportations before a competent court in those countries.”

Corruption and politics meddling in China’s legal system

Academics and experts have over the years written extensively on corruption within the Chinese legal system and how politics control law in Beijing.

In a 2016 Foreign Policy article, Jerome A. Cohen, co-director of the U.S.-Asia Law Institute at New York University School of Law, wrote that even though Chinese President Xi Jinping has emphasized the government’s efforts to end corruption within China’s legal system, “in principle the party controls the legal system at every level.”

“Despite his emphasis on ‘rule of law,’ Xi wants local courts reliably to submit to the discipline of the central party and judicial officials. He doesn’t want local judges to be independent of the central government, but he does aim to stop the local influences that distort local judgments,” Cohen wrote.

China’s criminal justice system is also known to violate human rights by denying suspects’ access to family members or lawyers of their own choosing while awaiting trial. There have also been many cases in which the state prevented lawyers from meeting clients or accessing necessary court material.

In March 2017, Taiwanese human rights activist Lee Ming-che disappeared while traveling in China. Chinese authorities later that month confirmed they were detaining Lee on suspicion of “subverting state power.” Lee went on trial in September 2017 in the Yueyang Intermediate People’s Court for attempts to promote human rights and democratic values on social media and messaging platforms. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced five years in jail last November.

The Taiwanese activist was unable to contact his family since his detention. Lee’s lawyer was also appointed by the Chinese court.

On May 29, 2009, China and Taiwan signed a “Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement” which stipulates that each side should “provide facilitation for visits by family members in accordance with each Party’s own rules and regulations.”

After Lee’s verdict was handed down, Taiwan Presidential Office Spokesperson Alex Huang said the manner in which China handled Lee’s case had damaged cross-Strait relations and challenged Taiwanese people’s belief in freedom and democracy.

This development has also raised fears that China may eventually pressure governments worldwide to send to China Taiwanese nationals who are suspected of having committed other types of “crimes” as defined by Chinese law, such as encouraging “separatism.”

Taiwanese human rights activist Lee Ming-che.

 

Top photo: From Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0.

TDB Vol. 2. No. 2: Taiwan’s Tough Road to Labor Reform

After months of confrontation, withdrawal in protest from the New Power Party and opposition from the Chinese Nationalist Party in the legislature, amendments to the Labor Standards Act — the second round since May 2016 — were passed by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party-led Legislative Yuan on Jan. 10. Alison Hsiao explains what the new laws entail.

Reform agenda

Amendments to the Labor Standards Act have been the object of heated debate since President Tsai Ing-wen assumed office in May 2016. During her election campaign, Tsai had proposed “six major labor policies” — reducing total working hours, reversing the trend of low wages, supporting employment for all generations, legislating protections for individuals with atypical work, guaranteeing protections against overwork and occupational injuries, and shaping a fair employment relationship. Since her inauguration, people have closely monitored and tracked how well her administration has done to make good those promises.

With Taiwan’s economy faltering, the wealth gap widening, wages stagnating for nearly two decades and a work environment that had not changed for several years, the need for reform was evident and especially welcome among the younger generations.

Amid partisan disagreement, on Dec. 16 last year the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led legislature passed amendments ensuring “one mandatory day off and one flexible rest day” every seven days (which labor rights groups protested were compromised by the reduction in the number of national holidays by seven). The new law also increased overtime pay for work on rest days and added annual leave days for younger employees with relatively few service years. (See Table 1 below)

On the anniversary of President Tsai’s inauguration, the Ministry of Labor conducted a “self-examination,” declaring that the administration has been making good progress in carrying out labor reform and calling the “one mandatory day off and one flexible holiday” measure “the most evident implementation of the administration’s pledge to lower working hours.”

Amendments to the amendments

The measures nevertheless met strong opposition from business leaders and those who claimed that the strict limitations set by the law deprived workers of the right to work more hours to earn overtime pay.

After Premier William Lai was sworn in, the Executive Yuan began mulling a response in September to the complaints concerning the “inflexibility” of the new rules by again amending the Labor Standards Act. On Nov. 9, it approved a series of proposed amendments that give more flexibility to various types of businesses.

The Legislative Yuan had since become a hotspot for protests outside and scuffles within. But still this did not stop the legislative committee from ramming through the review of the amendments on Dec. 4, sending them to the legislative floor for discussion and cross-caucus negotiations.

On Dec. 23, thousands of labor group and NGO members, activists and students took to the streets, raising placards which read “exhausted” and “end overworking” while accusing the ruling party of making an “about-face” and “betraying labor.” The protest occurred two days after the Cabinet called a press conference stressing that the revisions were made for exceptions, applicable only to industries or businesses that require flexibility and whose exemptions are approved by the government. Quoting a study conducted and published by the National Development Council (NDC) in cooperation with the Chung-hua Institution for Economic Research (CIER), in which both manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries have claimed that the “one mandatory day off and one flexible rest day” measure has negatively affected their operations and costs, Cabinet Spokesperson Hsu Kuo-yung underlined that the new amendments are to “both increase workers’ pay and facilitate a better operational environment for the businesses.”

The Dec. 23 march had been scheduled to end at 5pm, but a group of young protesters refused to disperse, and started a “night guerrilla tactic.” They hurtled around to be chased by the police and randomly stopped at crossroads to cause traffic congestion. The chase ended past midnight when police swarmed the Taipei Main Station East 3 Gate beleaguering the few remaining protesters, who in the end were, together with the lawyers who came to the protesters’ rescue, packed onto the police paddy wagon and “dumped” on the Taipei outskirts. The lawyers called a press conference in the small hours of Dec. 24 and accused police of infringing upon personal freedom and “grossly violating the law.”

An extraordinary legislative session was called for and began on Jan. 5 as the regular legislative session had ended on the last working day of 2017. The New Power Party (NPP) caucus, at the end of the first day of the extraordinary session, blocked the entrance by locking the doors of the legislative floor chamber with iron chains, while Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers, who reportedly also had planned to occupy the chamber, taking actions by stationing themselves outside the chamber with hundreds of amendment motions in an attempt to prevent DPP lawmakers from proposing the Labor Standards Act amendment bill. After the blockade ended 160 minutes later, the NPP legislators moved to the plaza in front of the Presidential Office and started a hunger strike.

Barbed-wire barricades and ad hoc restriction zone set by police around the Presidential Office since Jan. 5 have enraged activists. Some had taken the DPP to task for seemingly reneging on the stance it used to uphold on the Assembly and Parade Act, which was to relax the law and restrict its arbitrary use by the authorities.

On Jan. 8, civic and labor groups again protested outside the Legislative Yuan to pressure lawmakers, with some taking radical actions in hopes of raising further public attention. The NPP caucus, after being evicted from the front plaza of the Presidential Office in the early hours of the same morning, returned to the legislature but withdrew from the cross-caucus negotiations in protest.

Four Unchanged rules and Four Flexibilities’

On the afternoon of Jan. 9, the Legislative Yuan embarked on an 18-hour voting marathon. Legislators from the KMT staged a sit-in in the chamber, wearing headbands and spreading banners that read, “death of labor rights” and “shame of democracy,” while the NPP lawmakers walked out of the chamber all together and declared they would not to participate in any floor discussion and voting regarding the labor law.

The third reading of the amendments was completed on Jan. 10, giving flexibility for negotiations between unions and company management (between workers and management if no union exists) on matters regarding an overtime cap (the rule of 46 hours per month can be extended to 54 hours, although the three-month total of 138 hours remains unchanged), “one fixed day off and one rest day every seven days” (the rule stays but which day should be the fixed day off within the seven days can now be decided through union-management negotiations after government approval for some industries), and the hours of rest between shifts (11-hour-rest is the norm but exceptions could be made to reduce the rest hours to 8 and no less after union-management negotiations and with government approval). (See Table 1 below)

Also unchanged from the 2016 version of the amendments is the 40-hour workweek and overtime pay on rest days.

Infographic issued by the Ministry of Labor after the passage of the amendments. The ministry also released a statement refuting some of the Presidential Office’s Human Rights Consultative Committee members’ claims, published as an opinion piece in a major newspaper, which accused the latest labor law amendments of violating Article 7(d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The ministry reiterated that the flexibilities allowed do not sanction overworking as there are conditions to be met and approved by the government. (Picture courtesy: Ministry of Labor)

According to the government, the amendments provide more flexibility with regards to overtime, work schedule arrangements, shift arrangements and annual leave usage.

After passage of the bill, Minister of Labor Lin Mei-chu said the rules are the rules, and that the “exceptions will definitely not become the rules.” Lin was responding to widespread fears that the “flexibility” given to certain industries under certain conditions could result in misuse and exploitation. “The intervals between workers’ rest are not to be reduced without government approval following applications for flexibility and exceptions,” Lin said, adding that the ministry would flesh out supporting measures and mechanisms for curbing violations before March 1, the day the amendments officially take effect.

 

Table 1 Labor Law Amendments

*Before the 2015 40-hour workweek amendment, many were already enjoying two-day weekends because the MOL had made an interpretation of the law in 1998 allowing employers and employees to reach an agreement on swapping “not working the 4 additional work hours every two weeks under the ‘84 hours for every two-week period’ model” for not having days off on the following seven holidays: January 2 (an extension of the New Year’s Day holiday), March 29 (Youth Day), September 28 (Teachers’ Day), October 25 (Taiwan Retrocession Day), October 31 (Chiang Kai-shek’s Birthday), November 12 (Sun Yat-sen’s Birthday), and December 25 (Constitution Day). But not all employers adopted the swapping measure.                                  **Government approval required                                                                                                                                                  *** When the compensatory/annual leaves are not used up, employers are still required to pay accordingly.

TDB Vol. 2 No. 1: BERSIH 2.0: More than Just Street Protests

TDB Vol. 2 No. 1: BERSIH 2.0: More than Just Street Protests

Maria Chin Abdullah, head of the recipient of the 2017 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award, shares her views on democracy and the role of civic groups with Taiwanese NGOs. Olivia Yang reports.

 

“We are trying to define democracy in Malaysia, to say that it is all right for you to speak up, it’s all right to not fear them. Because once we show fear, we back down, we compromise.”

BERSIH 2.0 Chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah is speaking at a discussion with Taiwan NGOs in Taipei on Dec. 10, 2017. The Malaysia-based coalition had just been presented with the 2017 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award earlier that day, and proceeded to share her experiences with Taiwan NGOS on how civil societies in Asia advocate for fair and clean elections.

While BERSIH 2.0 is well-known for its sea of bright yellow-clad protesters in the streets of major cities around the world, rallies are not the only approach the coalition takes in expanding civil political participation throughout Malaysia.

“At any time now we can confidently say we can bring 100,000 people to the streets, but it took us 10 years to build up this momentum,” says Maria Chin Abdullah. “The other thing we are saying to the government is that you have to respect rule of law. We are actually challenging them.”

To build more awareness among Malaysians on the importance of civil participation in public affairs, BERSIH 2.0 has come up with new strategies. These include organizing electoral observations, forming a Delineation Action and Research Team (DART), and holding boot camps that provide education on the basics of democracy, elections and mass mobilization.

But the coalition’s efforts have not all been carried out smoothly.

Maria Chin Abdullah says that “as we get more sophisticated in reaching out to people, the state also gets more sophisticated in trying to counter us.”

BERSIH 2.0 Chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah at the 2017 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award Ceremony. (Photo: 黃謙賢 / TFD).

Pushback from the government is not unexpected; however BERSIH 2.0 is also seeing frustration from the civil society. Sometimes people want quick solutions to changing the government, which is very difficult due to the “uneven” system, says the BERSIH 2.0 chairperson.

“People think that just because they vote they should get the results they want. But it doesn’t work that way.”

While elections in Taiwan are comparatively clean and fair, challenges like vote-buying still exist.

Huang Shiow-duan is a standing board member at Transparency International Chinese Taipei (TICT) and chairperson of Citizen Congress Watch (CCW), a coalition of NGOs that monitors the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s Parliament.

During the conversation with BERSIH 2.0, Huang gave examples of how the organizations she is affiliated with are fighting corruption in the island-nation.

From 2013 to 2014, TICT collaborated with the Tainan District Prosecutors Office to produce a series of anti-corruption animated education videos. Huang says it is crucial to start anti-corruption education from a young age, and children can also be more persuasive in communicating information to older generations.

CCW, on the other hand, supervises Taiwan’s parliamentarians by broadcasting legislative sessions and making legislative documents accessible to the public. It also evaluates legislators once every six months and the evaluation report is made public so that civil society, along with legislators, are aware of their performance.

“I don’t think the government will clean itself. It needs supervision. That’s why we need to create a system of separation of power,” says Huang.

Compared to TICT and CCW, Watchout Co. is a younger NGO founded in 2013 with a mission of lowering the threshold of political participation. Being a media platform, Watchout empowers the people by sharing facts and informed opinions in a way that is easy to consume. It also utilizes social media and technology to oversee the government.

But echoing Maria Chin Abdullah, Yu Chih-hao, design and technology lead at Watchout, says that “empowering the people is the ultimate solution — but it’s the toughest solution.”

The main challenges Watchout faces is coming up with methods to free people’s time and minds, and getting other media outlets to distribute its information so the facts flow between different eco-chambers.

Yu nevertheless emphasizes the importance of democratic countries defining their own democracy and learning from each other.

“Practicing democracy in Taiwan is our lifeline,“ says Yu. “It’s one of the factors that differentiate Taiwan from China, and it’s one of the factors that get Taiwan international recognition and respect.”

“Democracy does not happen overnight. Democracy takes time,” says Maria Chin Abdullah. “We are struggling. We are backsliding. But I still believe in the power of the people.”

Top photo:  BERSIH 2.0 Chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah speaking at a discussion with Taiwan NGOs in Taipei on Dec. 10, 2017. (Photo: Olivia Yang).

 

No More Articles