Former Premier Frank Hsieh stated on his radio show on 12th April that the deportation of the Taiwanese suspected of fraud to China may not be a result of China applying pressure on the incoming administration but highlights the contradictions and limitations of the Ma administration’s notion of ‘One China, different interpretations’.
The representative from the Ministry of Justice stated that because victims were all in China, according to the geography, China did have jurisdiction. Hsieh pointed out that if China has jurisdiction, then why did President Ma protest? Why did our Representative in South Africa have to follow them [by car] to the airport? This shows the confusion and contradictions among different government ministries and departments.
The biggest problem lies in the fact that the Kenyan court has already found these individuals not guilty and the order prohibited deportation but the outcome was deportation to Mainland China.
Frank Hsieh pointed out that if China’s intervention and their claim of jurisdiction was on the basis that both sides belong to One China and the Taiwanese are counted as the Chinese, then we should have equal jurisdiction and treat those Chinese victims in the same way as our citizens according to Ma Ying-jeou’s notion of ‘One China, different interpretations’. This shows the huge discrepancy between the cross-strait policy and the reality.
In terms of press speculation that China’s unfriendly behaviour is aimed to apply pressure on President Elect Tsai Ing-wen, Frank Hsieh does not think there is evidence to support such inference as after all, Tsai Ing-wen has not taken office. Hsieh emphasised that this case involves foreign relations and may continue into the next administration. Therefore, the current and the incoming administrations needs to collaborate to solve the problem.
Hsieh stated that as there is a special relationship across the strait, the two sides have signed the Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement which sometimes requires us to support each other in the handling of suspects and criminals and sometimes requires China to extradite suspects or fugitives to us. This case has already resulted in 23 arrests in 2014 and the injunction did not just turn up yesterday. Has the Foreign Office has always been on top of the case? The point is whether our government has effectively understood, intervened and negotiated through the cross-strait mechanism. If not, it definitely impinges on our government’s jurisdiction and our human rights.