Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Chen Binhua: Good afternoon, friends in the press! Welcome to this special press conference held jointly by the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council (TAO) and relevant departments.

The current situation in the Taiwan Strait is complex and grave. The Democratic Progressive Party authorities are stubbornly adhering to a “Taiwan independence” separatist position and wantonly spreading “Taiwan independence” separatist fallacies, attempting to “rely on foreign countries to seek independence” and “seeking independence by force,” which seriously goes against mainstream public opinion on the island, seriously undermines the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait, and seriously endangers the nation’s sovereignty, security, and development interests. When it comes to diehard elements involved in egregious “independence” speech and behavior and rampant “independence”-seeking activities, we absolutely will not tolerate or condone them, or allow them to go unanswered. They must be countered, and they must be punished.

In order to severely crack down on the criminal acts of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards, on May 26, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, and the Ministry of Justice jointly formulated and issued the Opinions on Punishing the Crimes of Secession and Incitement to Secession by “Taiwan Independence” Diehards According to Law (“Opinions”), which was released and implemented today.

To help everyone fully and accurately understand this important judicial document related to Taiwan, the TAO has specially invited Ma Yan, member of the Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Committee and head of the Second Criminal Tribunal, Zhang Qingbin, deputy director of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate’s Major Crimes Department, Sun Ping, deputy director and first-level inspector of the Ministry of Public Security’s Legal Affairs Bureau, and Tian Xin, director of the Ministry of Justice’s Bureau of Lawyers’ Work. They will introduce and interpret the background, main content, and key provisions of this judicial document for everyone.

First, let us hear from the head of the Second Criminal Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court, Ma Yan, on the background and main content of the Opinions.

Ma Yan, member of the Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Committee and head of the Second Criminal Tribunal: Good afternoon, everyone! I will tell you about the circumstances for the issuance of the Opinions.

1. Background to the Opinions. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China clearly stipulates that Taiwan is a part of the People’s Republic of China’s sacred territory. The Anti-Secession Law clearly stipulates that safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots, and that the State will never allow “Taiwan independence” secessionist forces to split Taiwan from China under any name or in any way, making clear the State’s red line and bottom line on the Taiwan issue. The Criminal Law stipulates the crimes of secession and incitement to secession, providing a sufficient legal basis for pursuing criminal liability for “Taiwan independence” diehards according to law.

For some time now, a very small number of “Taiwan independence” diehards have been carrying out “Taiwan independence” secessionist activities, seriously endangering peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and seriously harming the common interests of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation. Holding “Taiwan independence” diehards who would split the country and undermine national unity criminally liable according to law is an inevitable requirement, and it is also a necessary measure for safeguarding the nation’s sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity.

In order to thoroughly implement Xi Jinping’s Thought on the Rule of Law and the Party’s overall strategy for resolving the Taiwan issue in the new era, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, and the Ministry of Justice have jointly formulated the Opinions after study and deliberation.

2. Main content of the Opinions. In accordance with the Anti-Secession Law, the Criminal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, and other laws, as well as relevant judicial interpretations, the Opinions clearly stipulate the general requirements for punishing crimes of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards, the standards for determining the severity of punishment, and the procedural norms. The Opinions contain a total of 22 articles. They mainly include the following:

First, regarding secession, the Opinions clarify the standards for determining the crimes of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards. With regard to the very small number of “Taiwan independence” diehards who organize, plan, and carry out separatist acts such as implementing “de jure independence,” “relying on foreign powers to seek independence,” and “seeking independence by force,” the Opinions clearly stipulate the specific circumstances under which the crime of secession and the crime of incitement to secession are applicable to “Taiwan independence” diehards, and makes provisions for determining “leading elements,” “serious crimes,” and “active participation” in relevant crimes, thereby providing clear guidelines for the judicial handling of cases.

Second, based on severe punishment according to law, they reiterate matters such as aggravating circumstances and not being subject to statutes of limitations. Regarding acts by “Taiwan independence” diehards of colluding with external forces to seek “independence,” the Opinions clearly stipulate that those who collude with foreign countries or overseas institutions, organizations, or individuals to commit criminal acts of secession or incitement to secession shall be given heavier punishment according to law. For criminal acts that are continuous or ongoing, it is emphasized that the statute of limitations shall be calculated from the date of the end of the criminal act; for “Taiwan independence” diehards who evade investigation or trial after the public security and state security institutions have filed a case for investigation, or the people’s court has accepted the case, they shall not be subject to a statute of limitations.

Third, punishment to fit the crime is adhered to, demonstrating the basic requirements of the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity. On the basis of upholding the principle of strict law enforcement, the Opinions fully implement the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity, so that severity and leniency are applied when  appropriate, and severity and leniency are combined, so that the punishment fits the crime. The Opinions specifically stipulate that if “Taiwan independence” diehards voluntarily abandon their “Taiwan independence” separatist position, do not again carry out “Taiwan independence” separatist activities, and take measures to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent the spread of harmful consequences, and if they comply with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, the case may be withdrawn, they may not be prosecuted, or they may not be prosecuted for one or more of the crimes they are suspected of.

Fourth, they follow legal procedures, regulating the handling of cases for crimes of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards. The Opinions stipulate that criminal suspects and defendants enjoy the right to defense according to law; they clearly stipulate that trial in absentia procedures can be applied according to law to cases involving crimes of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards, and clear provisions are made for procedural rights in trial in absentia proceedings, such as the right to defense and the right to appeal.

Fifth, the criminal law network is tightened to build a strong rule-of-law line of defense against “independence.” In order to effectively prevent and punish criminal acts other than secession and incitement to secession committed by “Taiwan independence” diehards, the Opinions stipulate in an appendix that other crimes committed by “Taiwan independence” diehards, such as criminal activities of financing the endangering of national security, can be handled in accordance with the Opinions.

It must be noted that the Opinions are aimed at a very small number of “Taiwan independence” diehards and their separatist activities, and do not involve the vast majority of Taiwan compatriots.

The next step will be for the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, and the Ministry of Justice to guide local people’s courts, people’s procuratorates, public security institutions, state security institutions, and judicial and administrative institutions to strictly implement the Criminal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, and the provisions of the Opinions, and resolutely punish “Taiwan independence” diehards according to law for crimes of secession and incitement to secession, thereby firmly safeguarding the nation’s sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity.

Thank you!

TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua: Thank you, President Ma. Now, please ask your questions.

Xinhua News Agency reporter: The Opinions clearly stipulate the specific circumstances in which the crime of secession and the crime of incitement to secession are applicable to “Taiwan independence” diehards. Could you elaborate on how the Opinions provide for this?

TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua: I will ask President Ma of the Supreme People’s Court to answer this question.

Ma Yan, member of the Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Committee and head of the Second Criminal Tribunal: Thank you for your question. Article 103 of the Criminal Law stipulates the crime of secession and the crime of incitement to secession. In particular, organizing, planning, and implementing secession or undermining national unity constitute the crime of secession; inciting secession and undermining national unity constitute the crime of incitement to secession.

Regarding the crime of secession, the Opinions stipulate four specific circumstances and one catch-all item: First, initiating or establishing a “Taiwan independence” secessionist organization, planning or formulating a “Taiwan independence” secessionist action program, plan, or scheme, and directing a “Taiwan independence” secessionist organization’s members or other individuals to carry out activities that would split the country and undermine national unity. These are the typical forms of behavior for the crime of secession.

Second, attempting to change the legal status of Taiwan as a part of China by formulating, amending, interpreting, or abolishing the relevant provisions of the Taiwan region, or by means of “referendums,” etc. This is mainly a provision made against manipulation of “de jure independence” by “Taiwan independence” diehards.

Third, attempting to create “two Chinas,” “one China, one Taiwan,” or “Taiwan independence” in the international community by means such as promoting Taiwan’s participation in international organizations limited to sovereign states, or conducting official exchanges or military contacts with foreign countries. This is mainly aimed at the separatist acts of “Taiwan independence” diehards to expand the so-called “international space,” “rely on foreign countries to seek independence,” and “seek independence by force.”

Fourth, using their official positions in fields such as education, culture, history, and news media to wantonly distort and tamper with the fact that Taiwan is a part of China, or to suppress political parties, groups, and individuals who support the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and national reunification. “Taiwan independence” diehards use their official positions to manipulate “gradual Taiwan independence” and suppress the just forces that support “reunification,” doing serious harm. It is therefore stipulated as a secession crime situation.

Regarding the crime of incitement to secession, the Opinions stipulate one specific situation and one catch-all item, clearly stipulating that those who stubbornly promote the secessionist position of “Taiwan independence” and their secessionist programs, plans, and schemes, with the aim of splitting Taiwan from China, shall be convicted and punished for the crime of incitement to secession.

Reporter from the China Media Group’s Watching the Taiwan Strait and Sun Moon Lake Tianxin Media: How will the public security institutions implement the Opinions and crack down on “Taiwan independence” diehards?

TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua: I will ask Deputy Director Sun Ping of the Ministry of Public Security to answer this question.

Sun Ping, deputy director and first-level inspector of the Ministry of Public Security’s Legal Affairs Bureau: Thank you for your question. The Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the three ministries provide public security institutions with more powerful legal weapons to crack down according to law on “Taiwan independence” diehards who commit criminal acts of secession or incitement to secession, and provide more precise guidance on accurately identifying crimes and correctly applying procedures.

For crimes of secession or incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards, the public security institutions will handle cases in strict accordance with legal procedures, and, in conjunction with the relevant departments, will pursue criminal liability according to law. The main culprits among them and those who have committed serious crimes will be especially targeted and severely punished according to law.

At the same time, for those who voluntarily abandon their “Taiwan independence” separatist position, do not again carry out “Taiwan independence” separatist activities, and take measures to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent the spread of harmful consequences, in compliance with statutory conditions, the public security institutions may also withdraw the case according to law after being approved according to law.

People’s Court Daily reporter: “Taiwan independence” is a serious crime of secession. How is strict punishment of “Taiwan independence” diehards reflected in the Opinions?

TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua: I will ask President Ma of the Supreme People’s Court to answer this question.

Ma Yan, member of the Supreme People’s Court and head of the Second Criminal Division: The crime of secession and the crime of incitement to secession are listed in Chapter 1 of the Special Provisions of the Criminal Law, and are among the most serious crimes. “Taiwan independence” separatist activities seriously endanger national sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity. Therefore, the Opinions adhere to the position of strictly punishing according to law the crimes of secession and incitement to secession committed by “Taiwan independence” diehards. Specifically, this position can be summarized as “three-fold strictness:”

First, a strict legal net. The Opinions focus on “Taiwan independence” diehards who are involved in egregious “independence” speech and behavior and rampant “independence”-seeking activities, and by sorting through and listing typical “Taiwan independence” separatist acts, they clarify the specific circumstances under which the crime of secession and the crime of incitement to secession apply to “Taiwan independence” diehards, so as to accurately target them and punish them. At the same time, they clarify that other crimes committed by “Taiwan independence” diehards, such as crimes of financing activities that endanger national security, can be handled accordance with the Opinions, thereby weaving a tight legal net for punishing “Taiwan independence” diehards.

Second, strict accountability. In circumstances where the scope of activity of “Taiwan independence” diehards is mainly in Taiwan and foreign countries, the Opinions clearly stipulate that trial in absentia procedures can be applied according to law in cases of crimes of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards. For provocateurs who are unrepentant and wantonly seek “independence,” the Opinions stipulate that where the criminal acts of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards are continuous or ongoing, the period for prosecution shall be calculated from the date of the end of the criminal acts. These provisions are interconnected and embody a firm attitude of zero tolerance toward “Taiwan independence” diehards.

Third, strict punishment. The Opinions highlight the focus of cracking down, and for situations that are serious and should be severely punished, they refine the standards for determining “serious crimes” and “active participation” in the crimes of secession and incitement to secession, providing guidance for stricter punishment. For example, the Opinions stipulate that those who have participated many times in the separatist activities of the “Taiwan independence” separatist organizations, played a key role in “Taiwan independence” separatist organizations, or actively assisted the ringleaders in carrying out organizational and leadership activities, shall be deemed to have “actively participated” in the crime of secession and shall be sentenced according to law to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years. Where the criminal act of incitement to secession is committed and the circumstances are serious, causing serious consequences or producing particularly egregious effects, it shall be deemed a “serious crime” and shall be punished by law with a fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years. In addition, those who collude with foreign countries or overseas institutions, organizations, or individuals to commit criminal acts of secession or incitement to secession shall be given heavier punishment according to law.

It should be emphasized that, for severely punishing crimes of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards according to law, we are speaking in overall terms. On the basis of adhering to overall severity, the Opinions also make some more lenient provisions, so as to fully implement the criminal policy of combining severity with leniency.

People’s Daily reporter: The Opinions mention that “Taiwan independence” diehards can be tried in absentia. Can you introduce the specific provisions and main considerations?

TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua: I will ask the deputy director of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Zhang Qingbin, to answer this question.

Zhang Qingbin, deputy director of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate’s Major Crimes Department: Thank you for your question. According to the relevant provisions on trial in absentia procedures in Part 5, Chapter 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law, for crimes that seriously endanger national security and require prompt trial, a defendant who is outside the territory of China may be prosecuted according to law following approval by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. The provisions of that chapter demonstrate the firm will of the State to combat crimes that seriously endanger national security, and provide a clear legal basis for severely punishing serious criminal acts that endanger national security.

The Opinions reiterate and clarify those provisions which are aimed at “Taiwan independence” diehards who betray the national interest and run counter to the people’s will, seriously endangering the nation’s sovereignty, security, and development interests. No matter where they are, these diehards who are involved in egregious “independence” speech and behavior and rampant “independence”-seeking activities will not escape punishment by the nation’s laws.

As long as the law enforcement and judicial institutions determine that prompt prosecution is necessary, the public security and state security institutions may, after approval by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, transfer the case to a people’s procuratorate for prosecution according to law, even if the suspect is not in custody. If, after examination, the people’s procuratorate determines that the facts of the crime are clear, the evidence is certain and sufficient, and criminal liability should be pursued according to law, it may initiate a public prosecution in a people’s court; if, after examination, the people’s court determines that the conditions for the application of trial in absentia procedures are met, it shall decide to hold a trial.

Those “Taiwan independence” diehards who are obstinate and incorrigible should not harbor any false hopes. Whenever the criminal acts of secession and incitement to secession are committed, we will not tolerate, condone, or turn a blind eye to them. We will pursue them to the end and punish them severely according to law.

Reporter from China News, China Media Group: Regarding criminal acts of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards, what are the specific provisions on statutes of limitations?

TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua: I will ask Deputy Director Sun Ping of the Ministry of Public Security to answer this question.

Sun Ping, deputy director and first-level inspector of the Ministry of Public Security’s Legal Affairs Bureau: Thank you for your question. According to Articles 87, 88, and 89 of the Criminal Law and relevant provisions on crimes endangering national security, different prosecution periods are stipulated for criminal acts of secession and incitement to secession, depending on the circumstances of the crime. Take “ringleaders” or “major crimes” for example: For the crime of incitement to secession, the statutory maximum sentence is fixed-term imprisonment for more than five years, and the statute of limitations is 15 years; for the crime of secession, the statutory maximum sentence is death, and the statute of limitations is 20 years; for the crime of secession, if the circumstances are particularly egregious and the consequences are particularly serious, and criminal liability must be pursued according to law, then even if the 20-year statute of limitations has expired, it can still be prosecuted according to law after being reported to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and approved in accordance with legal procedures.

According to the provisions of the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the three Ministries, two points are emphasized: First, if the criminal act of secession or incitement to secession is committed continuously or is ongoing, then the time during which it is in a continuous or ongoing state is not counted in the prosecution period. The prosecution period is only calculated from the date the crime has ended. This means that if the secessionist behavior of “Taiwan independence” diehards does not stop, the sharp sword of legal accountability will always be hanging over them.

Second, where a suspect or defendant evades investigation or trial after the criminal act of secession or incitement to secession has been filed for investigation or accepted by a people’s court, they will not be subject to a statute of limitations. In other words, once criminal acts of secession or incitement to secession are filed for investigation by the investigative authorities or accepted by a people’s court, the “Taiwan independence” diehards will be held accountable for life, regardless of where they flee to.

Phoenix TV (Hong Kong) reporter: Perhaps some people in Taiwan will worry that this judicial document will affect their freedom of speech, and may have concerns about participating in cross-Strait exchanges. What is the spokesperson’s response to this?

TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua: Using criminal justice to punish separatist criminal elements and safeguard core national interests is a common practice of countries around the world. Taiwan is a part of China, and the State will never allow “Taiwan independence” separatist forces to split Taiwan from China under any name or in any way. It is reasonable and legitimate to punish in accordance with law the crimes of secession and incitement to secession by “Taiwan independence” diehards.

From the title to the text, the Opinions clearly indicate that criminal punishment measures are only aimed at a very small number of “Taiwan independence” diehards who are involved in egregious “independence” speech and behavior and rampant “independence”-seeking activities, as well as the crimes of secession and incitement to secession that they have committed. “Taiwan independence” is the greatest source leading to the danger of war and harm to the interests of the people of Taiwan. Only by severely punishing “Taiwan independence” secessionist crimes according to law can Taiwan compatriots enjoy the dividends of peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and truly live peaceful and happy lives.

We have always respected, cared for, and benefited our Taiwan compatriots, and warmly welcome and support the participation of the vast majority of Taiwan compatriots in cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation in various fields, and in sharing the opportunities of Chinese-style modernization and development. We hope that the vast majority of Taiwan compatriots will uphold the greater national interest, follow the general trend of history, fully understand the extreme harmfulness and destructiveness of “Taiwan independence” secession, stand on the right side of history, resolutely oppose “Taiwan independence” secession and foreign interference, take practical actions to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and their own safety and well-being, and work with their compatriots on the mainland to create a bright future for the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

Reporter from the Legal Daily: Please introduce the relevant provisions and main considerations of the Opinions on the defense rights of criminal suspects and defendants.

TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua: I will ask Director Tian Xin of the Ministry of Justice to answer this question.

Tian Xin, director of the Ministry of Justice’s Bureau of Lawyers’ Work: Thank you for your question. According to the Criminal Procedure Law, criminal suspects and defendants enjoy the right to defense according to law. When “Taiwan independence” diehards are suspected of committing crimes such as secession and incitement to secession, and are being held criminally liable according to law, they enjoy litigation rights, such as the right to defense, according to law.

Articles 16 and 19 of the Opinions make specific provisions on how criminal suspects and defendants can appoint defense attorneys, which reflects the uniting of combating and deterring crime on one hand, and safeguarding the rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants according to law on the other. When appointing defense attorneys, criminal suspects, defendants, or their close relatives shall abide by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, the Lawyers Law, the Legal Aid Law, and other laws and regulations, as well as the Opinions. For example, during in absentia trial proceedings, the defendant has the right to appoint, or have a close relative appoint, one or two defense attorneys. Where neither the defendant nor his or her close relatives appoint a defense attorney, the people’s court shall notify the legal aid agency to assign an attorney to defend the defendant.

Reporter from China Review News (Hong Kong): “Taiwan independence” diehards are clearly punished under the Opinions. Will anyone else be involved, apart from the ten people already announced by the mainland authorities?

TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua: I will answer this question. For “Taiwan independence” diehards who commit criminal acts of secession and incitement to secession as stipulated in the Opinions, the law enforcement and judicial institutions of the State will resolutely take punitive measures and show zero tolerance according to law. We urge “Taiwan independence” diehards facing the legal net for punishing “independence” and the sharp sword of justice to clearly understand the situation as soon as possible, quickly pull back from the precipice, and repent their past mistakes as soon as possible.

Thanks, friends in the press. Today’s special press conference is now concluded. I also thank the court tribunal heads and bureau and department directors for their participation. Xinhua News Agency will be authorized to release the full text of the Opinions later. We welcome everyone to continue their coverage.