Expert discusses deterring transnational repression
By Fang Wei-li and Jake Chung / Staff reporter, with staff writer
Harsher penalties without early threat detection and efforts to identify those behind the action would not deter transnational repression, Taipei District Court national security judge and Institute for National Defense and Security Research adjunct fellow Hsu Kai-chieh (許凱傑) said on Friday.
Taiwan should draw on the experiences of Canada and Australia, which have measures to share threat information and penalize preparatory acts involving foreign interference before attacks occur, he said.
Amendments must clearly define what constitutes a legal violation and how “foreign forces” are identified, ensuring that people are not accused of breaking the law simply because of their political views or correspondence with people in China, he added.
Hsu Kai-hsieh, a judge in the Taipei District Court’s National Security Division, is pictured in Taipei in an undated photograph.
Photo: Huang Yun-hsuan, Taipei Times
“Defensive democracy does not lower the standards of the rule of law. Rather, it means ensuring that democracies have the means, through rigorous legal procedures, to prevent authoritarian states from exploiting the openness of democratic societies to oppress their people,” he said.
The prevention of transnational repression requires early warnings, investigations to identify those behind the acts and protection for victims, he said.
The government should ensure that people who might be targeted receive timely information about threats, Hsu said.
For example, Canada allows intelligence agencies to share threat information with people and organizations outside the government, he said, adding that it helps potential targets take precautions.
Meanwhile, Australia criminalizes preparatory acts involving foreign interference, as well as providing funding or substantial support to foreign intelligence services, Hsu said.
Such provisions give law enforcement agencies opportunities to disrupt operations before targets are attacked, he added.
The Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) covers some forms of such conduct, but there is room for improvement in provisions addressing threats, coercion, unlawful detention and the illegal collection or use of personal data when such acts involve foreign infiltration, he said.
He also called for greater interagency cooperation, saying that an operation could involve surveillance, cyberattacks and direction from overseas, but as some information is held separately by the police, cybersecurity agencies and intelligence services, investigators could struggle to link seemingly unrelated incidents.
US legislative proposals and Germany’s experience could provide useful references for Taiwan as it develops coordination channels and reporting mechanisms, Hsu said.
Information sharing must comply with evidence-gathering rules and protect intelligence sources, ensuring that investigative leads can be turned into evidence that stand up in court, he added.
Hsu also warned that the public might hesitate to report threats, because they fear retaliation.
The government should provide reliable channels for seeking help, security advice and legal assistance, as well as clear procedures for receiving reports, assessing risks and providing protection, he said.
Making victims feel safe enough to seek help would also allow authorities to preserve evidence earlier and prevent further harm, he added.
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.