The Serious Significance of K'o Chen-t'ung's Arrest

The arrest of K'o Chen-t'ung in Beijing for alleged drug involvement has become the hottest "gossip" news of the past two days. Yet, more serious issues lie within. According to information "confirmed" by Chinese state media on August 18, K'o was arrested on August 14. Prior to this, however, only rumors of his arrest stirred public attention, and no one knew where he was or what treatment he was receiving—a situation that persisted even after the Chinese state media "confirmed" his arrest.

In a civilized nation, no matter how conclusive the offense may be, criminal suspects and defendants must be accorded due human rights protections throughout the course of criminal prosecution. They must be able to retain lawyers, obtain fair and adequate opportunities for defense, ensure personal safety, demand that courts conduct habeas corpus hearings within 24 hours, remain free from unnecessary personal restraint, and ensure that family members receive prompt notification within 24 hours, among other rights. Naturally, legal loopholes such as "administrative detention," which is not regulated by due process, would not be tolerated. In cases like K'o's, where individuals vanish upon arrest and must wait for those in power to graciously release information, it poses a grave threat to human rights.

Protection of Citizens Should Be a Priority

The reason this issue is serious is because it does not only happen to celebrities whom the public is currently heavily condemning and despising; it can also happen to any Republic of China citizen, known or unknown to you and me, who is engaging in activities in China.

Before the Ma administration signed the Cross-Strait Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement the year before last (2012) and negotiated the reciprocal establishment of cross-strait offices last year, civil society organizations repeatedly demanded that a "personal freedom protection mechanism" be incorporated into them. They urged that when people from either side of the strait suffer any form of personal restraint in the other's territory, the arresting party must notify family members and representatives of the other side's office within 24 hours, granting family members and representatives the right to visit and to appoint lawyers on their behalf. Unfortunately, the Ma administration did not place the obligation of "protecting citizens" at the forefront of cross-strait policy. To this day, a human rights protection mechanism has yet to be established; there is only a thin paper "consensus" appendix that completely defers to the Chinese Communist Party, alongside the long-standing "Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fudging and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement," which relies on the grace of the CCP and lacks regulatory effectiveness.

When the Cross-Strait Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement was initially signed, the text of the agreement made no mention of personal protection whatsoever, instead adopting a "consensus" appendix. While the "consensus" did contain language—and merely language—stating that notification shall be made "within 24 hours in accordance with respective regulations," and "in accordance with the law" to "family members in the Mainland China area" or "enterprises in the Mainland China area," the phrase "in accordance with respective regulations" already implies that Taiwan must accept China's "legal facts," with China unilaterally deciding whether to notify "family members in the Mainland China area" within 24 hours. Needless to say, under this consensus, failing to notify "in accordance with the law" would not trigger any violation effects.

During last year's detention incident involving the Taiwanese businessman surnamed Yen, his family in Xiamen received no information for over three months, and government departments were completely helpless. Such a "consensus," where execution depends entirely on the decision of the CCP, is merely a "system of benevolence" and can hardly be called a "human rights protection" mechanism.

Democracy and Human Rights Are Our Most Direct Interests

The experience of the black-box Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement has taught us that the commercial interests of certain individuals in cross-strait exchanges do not equate to economic interests, nor do economic interests equate to citizen and national interests. In the end, democracy and human rights are the core interests most closely tied to citizens. Today, the K'o Chen-t'ung incident serves as a further reminder to everyone that it is not only "Taiwanese businessmen" who may face personal restraint and need a personal freedom protection mechanism—any ROC citizen residing in China needs one. Therefore, the most serious significance of the K'o Chen-t'ung case should be this: the Taiwanese people must demand that the government, once the legislation for "congressional oversight" of cross-strait agreements is completed, place the establishment of a generally applicable personal freedom protection mechanism at the top of the cross-strait relations agenda.