Taiwan indicts four former members of ruling party accused of spying for China
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) -- Prosecutors in Taiwan on Tuesday indicted four former members of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party on charges of spying for China, authorities said.
It wasn't clear whether the four had volunteered their services, but the indictments point to China's willingness to exploit any opening to gain confidential information about the island it claims as its own territory.
It is alleged that confidential information, including details about the schedules of the president and vice president during their trips abroad, may have been obtained.
The four included Huang Chu-jung, a former assistant to a county councilor representing the DPP that has run Taiwan for the past nine years, who was allegedly recruited while on a business trip to China. the Taipei District Prosecutors' Office said.
The three others had also formerly served as advisers in the presidential office, the National Security Council and other bodies, the prosecution statement said.
The indictments come amid a series of such actions by the Taiwanese government, especially targeting serving and retired military personnel.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
9 hours ago
- Japan Times
Presidents have been treating journalists badly since Lincoln
I don't know whether The Associated Press will ultimately prevail in its legal challenge to the Trump administration's reckless and petty decision to kick the venerable organization out of the press pool, which has more White House access than other credentialed journalists. The lawsuit took a hit on last week when a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit tossed a lower court's preliminary injunction, allowing the White House to reinstate parts of the ban. But as the litigation continues, it's worth noting that punishing the press out of presidential pique is nothing new. The current controversy arose in February, after the AP refused to revise its style guide to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by President Donald Trump's preferred "Gulf of America.' The administration, with its typical small-mindedness, stripped the AP of its usual insider's seat. But punishing journalists for refusing to follow government orders is pretty much the opposite of freedom of the press. Still, nobody should have been surprised. The administration's action, although wrong, was not without Trumpian precedent. And not without non-Trumpian precedent either. Although I have some sympathy with Judge Cornelia Pillard's dissenting opinion in the AP case, I fear she's imprecise when she asserts that "participation in the Press Pool or the broader White House press corps has never been conditioned on the viewpoint expressed outside the Pool by any participating news organization — until now.' The unfortunate truth is that presidents have acted badly toward reporters who criticize them for as long as we've had presidents and reporters. History abounds with examples. Indeed, long before there existed a White House press corps, presidential peevishness led to the punishment of newspapers. We could go back to Abraham Lincoln and John Adams, who might reasonably rank first and second on the list of the nation's best presidents, but both of whose administrations jailed journalists whose reporting they didn't like. A better point of departure might be 1904, when Jesse Carmichael of the Boston Herald filed a story about the Thanksgiving Day antics of Theodore Roosevelt's children, who the paper claimed had chased a turkey across the lawn. "Why should the Roosevelt children be allowed to torment and frighten an innocent bird?' the article concluded. The president's secretary — the office of press secretary did not yet exist — denied that the incident had taken place. But the denial did not satisfy Roosevelt, who ordered both Carmichael and his paper barred from receiving any news releases, not only from the White House, but from all executive departments. The Herald was not even permitted access to official weather forecasts. (The newspaper stood its ground, insisting that Roosevelt had been "misinformed' about the contents of the story.) Roosevelt's hostility toward the press was legendary. When, just before the 1908 election, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World reported that the Roosevelt family had profited from the Panama Canal deal, the president informed Congress ominously that the attorney general "has under consideration' charges against the newspaper — a message condemned even by editors friendly to the administration. Roosevelt was undeterred by the criticism. Shortly before leaving office, he filed a lawsuit for criminal libel against theWorld and a second newspaper. The U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately throw out the case, not because it offended freedom of the press, but on the ground that the federal judiciary lacked jurisdiction. Speaking of Roosevelts, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House, reporters were forbidden to photograph the chief executive in his wheelchair. The historian Harold Holzer, in his engrossing 2020 book on the history of the relationship between the press and presidents, tells us that what FDR's White House styled as a "request' was firmly enforced: "Persistent offenders risked losing their press credentials.' How effective was the ban? According to Holzer, a later study found that of 35,000 surviving photographs of FDR, only two showed him in his wheelchair. On the other hand, it apparently isn't true, as often reported, that President Richard Nixon barred The Washington Post from covering his daughter Tricia's 1971 wedding. What did happen, according to biographer John A. Farrell, is that Nixon was so incensed by what he considered the Post's "snide' coverage of the event that he ordered Ron Ziegler, his press secretary, to keep the newspaper from attending future White House social events. Then, says Farrell, the president went further: "They're never to be in the White House again. Never! Is that clear?' It does not appear that the ban was ever enforced. Perhaps Ziegler knew enough to let his boss calm down. And for those who can stretch their memories back to that ancient year 2023, it was Joe Biden's administration that rewrote the credentialing rules to rid itself of Cameroonian journalist Simon Ateba, whose offense was evidently shouting over others to get his questions heard. The White House called him disruptive; Ateba claimed that he had to interrupt because he was never called on — and that he was never called on because the administration disliked his views. Either way, the new rules, which limited credentials to those employed by news organizations, excluded hundreds of others as well. None of this history is meant to excuse the Trump administration's decision to kick the AP out of the Oval Office over a line in the organization's style guide. The decision was petty, disquieting and wrong. Perhaps the courts will yet strike it down. My point, rather, is that it's been a tragedy of our history that presidents good and bad have frequently taken out their anger on the press. That the news media have survived White House pettishness might be described as a glory of our democracy. Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of law at Yale University and author of "Invisible: The Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster.'
The Mainichi
9 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Members of the Fulbright scholarship board resign, accusing Trump of meddling
(AP) -- Nearly all the members of a board overseeing the prestigious Fulbright scholarships resigned Wednesday in protest of what they call the Trump administration's meddling with the selection of award recipients for the international exchange program. A statement published online by board members said the administration usurped the board's authority by denying awards to "a substantial number of people" who already had been chosen to study and teach in the U.S. and abroad. Another 1,200 foreign award recipients who were already approved to come to the U.S. are undergoing an unauthorized review process that could lead to their rejection, the board members said. "To continue to serve after the Administration has consistently ignored the Board's request that they follow the law would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America's credibility abroad," the statement reads. Congress established the Fulbright program nearly 80 years ago to promote international exchange and American diplomacy. The highly selective program awards about 9,000 scholarships annually in the U.S. and in more than 160 other countries to students, scholars, and professionals in a range of fields. All but one of the 12 board members resigned, according to Carmen Estrada-Schaye, who is the only remaining board member. "I was appointed by the president of the United States and I intend to fill out my term," Estrada-Schaye said. Fulbright scholars include recent U.S. college graduates who pursue further study or teach English overseas, American professors who spend a year at a university in another country and international scholars who come to the U.S. to study or work at universities here. Alumni of the program have gone on to serve as heads of state or government and have received Nobel and Pulitzer prizes. Notable alumni include Leslie Voltaire, president of Haiti's transitional presidential council; Muhammad Yunus, chief adviser of Bangladesh; Luc Frieden, prime minister of Luxembourg; and King Felipe VI of Spain. Award recipients are selected in a yearlong process by nonpartisan staff at the State Department and other countries' embassies. The board has had final approval. The recipients who had their awards canceled are in fields including biology, engineering, agriculture, music, medical sciences, and history, the board members said. All the board members who resigned were selected under former President Joe Biden. The State Department, which runs the scholarship program, said they were partisan political appointees. "It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders. The claim that the Fulbright Hayes Act affords exclusive and final say over Fulbright Applications to the Fulbright board is false. This is nothing but a political stunt attempting to undermine President Trump," the department said. The resignations were first reported by The New York Times. The intervention from the Trump administration undermines the program's merit-based selection process and its insulation from political influence, the board members wrote. "We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute," the statement said. "It is our sincere hope that Congress, the courts, and future Fulbright Boards will prevent the administration's efforts to degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate one of our nation's most respected and valuable programs." The announcement comes as the Trump administration ratchets up scrutiny of international students on several fronts. The administration has expanded the grounds for revoking foreign students' legal status, and recently paused scheduling of new interviews for student visas as it increases vetting of their social media activity. The government also has moved to block foreign students from attending Harvard as it pressures the Ivy League school to adopt a series of reforms. ___ This story has been corrected to reflect 11 of the 12 board members resigned, not all of them.
Japan Times
10 hours ago
- Japan Times
A belligerent China hones its tools of intimidation
Amid turmoil elsewhere in the world, the steady expansion of China's military presence in waters surrounding Japan has been overlooked. Recent exercises underscore the ability of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to project power ever farther from the country's shores. When combined with the increasing tempo, sophistication and intensity of drills around Taiwan, China's intent could not be clearer: Beijing is signaling its growing capability and readiness to press its will on regional governments. Japan must do more to prepare. Regional and global attention has been focused on the steady creep of the Chinese military presence in the South China Sea. Especially fraught is the rising tension with the Philippines, which is engaged in a bitter dispute with China over territory in those waters, but Beijing has also antagonized other countries with claims in those waters, such as Vietnam and Indonesia. At the same time, the PLA has held a growing number of military exercises in and around Taiwan. The Chinese leadership is angered by the continued success of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party on the island, which Beijing claims is 'a renegade province' and whose political leadership continues to defy its calls for reunification with the mainland. China has been especially active around the island since former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in August 2022, with the Eastern Theater Command's exercise program expanding from regular quarterly exercises to almost monthly operations. Taiwan President Lai Ching-te is the focus of particular anger and has been denounced for making 'rampant provocations for 'independence.'' Especially troubling are three major encirclement military exercises that the PLA has conducted since Lai took office a little over a year ago. The most recent consisted of two days of Strait Thunder-2025A, conducted in early April. They were intended to serve as 'a stern warning' to 'Taiwan independence' forces, reported China's Taiwan Affairs Office. The drills occurred in the middle and southern parts of the Taiwan Strait and focused, said the Eastern Theater Command's spokesperson, on 'joint blockade and control' operations and 'precision strikes on key targets,' such as ports and energy facilities. The Taiwanese Defense Ministry detected 76 Chinese warplanes, 13 PLA vessels and four China Coast Guard ships near Taiwan in 24 hours. Reportedly, 68 Chinese aircraft crossed the median line of the Strait, an informal demarcation of the waterway, the most since the 2022 exercise that followed Pelosi's visit. For the first time, Chinese coast guard vessels entered the 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone around the main island of Taiwan. The Defense Ministry criticized the exercises as 'aggressive, provocative and irresponsible.' The United States agreed, calling them 'irresponsible threats and military pressure operations near Taiwan' that 'exacerbate tensions and undermine cross-Strait peace and stability.' Japan's response was more tepid. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said the Japanese government was 'watching it (the drill) with serious interest,' and had conveyed its concern to Beijing about the exercises. Since the April exercises were Strait Thunder-2025A, at least one more — B — is expected later this year. Adm. Samuel Paparo, head of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, warned last month that these exercises are not drills but are 'rehearsals' for an invasion of the island. Other observers fear that they could be cover for an actual invasion. Japanese strategists are also worried about the growing capabilities of China's aircraft carriers. Three have been built, and the third, the Fujian, the most advanced in its fleet, has begun its sea trials and is set to be commissioned soon. As Jesse Johnson wrote in The Japan Times this week, the Beijing government has called it 'one of the most important' pieces of military hardware and central to the goal of ensuring that the PLA is a 'world-class military' by the middle of this century. The other two carriers, the Liaoning and the Shandong, this week conducted their first simultaneous operations in the Pacific. The 'routine exercises' were designed 'to test the forces' capabilities in far seas defense and joint operations.' The exercises represent a rapid expansion of Chinese capabilities — the two ships had their first dual-carrier drills in the South China Sea last October. And the Liaoning was observed off Minamitorishima, the first Chinese aircraft carrier to cross the so-called second island chain, a stretch of islands from Japan to Guam and the islands of Micronesia. That follows a string of other 'firsts' detailed by Johnson — the Liaoning's first operations in the East China Sea earlier this year and its first passage last September through a narrow waterway between Yonaguni and Iriomote islands in Okinawa Prefecture. While legal, that passage was denounced by a Japanese government spokesperson as 'totally unacceptable from the perspective of the security environment of Japan and the region.' When challenged, the Chinese response is invariably that its actions are consistent with international law and that the country only acts defensively, responding to the actions of other nations and never targeting any specific country. Defense Minister Gen Nakatani was right when he said that 'China is seeking to enhance the operational capabilities of its two aircraft carriers in distant maritime and airspace areas.' That characterization extends to the entire PLA and the various activities it has undertaken in recent years. Quite simply, China is honing its power projection capabilities. Beijing seeks to protect increasingly far-flung assets as well as shape regional geopolitical dynamics. The PLA is a tool to influence regional decision-making and the Chinese leadership is increasingly confident in its ability to do just that. Central to that ambition is both habituating the world, and regional governments in particular, to the exercise of Chinese power and then intimidating those governments into accommodating Chinese policy preferences whatever their national interests might be. While the world must accept Chinese actions — as long as they are in fact legal — it must not bend to the larger Chinese goal. This demands a more robust defense posture and doctrine that counters the PLA and deters Chinese aggression, whether conventional or through the use of 'hybrid' tactics that Beijing has used to rewrite the regional status quo. This requires money as well as a new strategy that adapts to the various dimensions of Chinese strategy and tactics. Japan must be prepared not only for deliberate acts, whether an attack or a quarantine, but also the inevitable accidents — collisions, misfires and other mistakes — that occur as China engages in exercises and accelerates its operational tempo. Ready and reliable communications channels with Beijing are a must. This also requires an aggressive diplomatic campaign that aligns and rallies like-minded countries to ensure the largest and most solid bulwark against Chinese revisionism. That will consist of both active and creative diplomacy as well as a readiness to use economic tools. It goes without saying that all this must be done in close cooperation and coordination with our ally, the United States. The Japan Times Editorial Board
