Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Volksabstimmung/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 2.0
A JAPANESE INFLUENCER was deported late last month over filming a video by Ximending’s Rainbow Crosswalk in Taipei in which he and another Japanese man raised the flag of the People’s Republic of China and declared that Taiwan was part of China. The man in question, referred to as Aira Todomi on his social media presence, carried out the act along with another man referred to as Hiroyuki Tanaka on social media.
Tanaka was not deported, as he had already left Taiwan. However, the National Immigration Agency has banned both men from re-entering Taiwan. Both had previously entered using visa-free entry.
Todomi is reportedly married to a Taiwanese person. Both spoke Mandarin in the video, emphasizing that they were Japanese nationals who loved China, and singing the Chinese national anthem. Nevertheless, Todomi has also referred to himself as Chinese in other videos.
Todomi and Tanaka likely came to the attention of the National Immigration Agency through angry Taiwanese netizens who reported their actions. This took place under the basis of Item 13 of Article 18 of the Immigration Act, which allows the National Immigration Agency to prohibit a foreign national from entering Taiwan if he or she is “believed to endanger national interests, public security, public order, or the good customs of the State.”
The deportation raises the question of what is considered endangering national interests or public security on the basis of pro-China sentiment. This is a question that has increasingly been flagged by the Lai administration, which has been notably more proactive than the Tsai administration in deporting individuals for activity that expresses support for the Chinese annexation of Taiwan by force.
This previously occurred with several Chinese influencers married to Taiwanese, the best-known of which was “Yaya in Taiwan”, who expressed support for Chinese military exercises intended to intimidate Taiwan and advocated the unification of Taiwan and China by armed force. The Lai administration has denied that such actions infringe on freedom of expression, stating that it draws the line at advocating the unification of Taiwan and China using force, but that advocating unification on peaceful grounds is an acceptable view.
In a similar timeframe, the Mainland Affairs Council has warned 23 influencers over reposting a social media post from Chinese state-run media that framed Taiwan as a province of China. Previously, the Mainland Affairs Council had taken issue with Taiwanese entertainers who repost content from accounts run by Chinese state-run media around the same timeframe as Chinese military exercises, though it did not go after any entertainers over recent military drills by China.
Such actions more generally point to how the Lai administration views expressions of pro-China sentiment by influencers in a securitized frame. The Lai administration is particularly conscious of attempts to sway the public into thinking that resistance to China is futile, as well as to sow dissent in society.
Still, questions about what is permissible freedom of expression have been raised by the Lai administration’s actions. For its part, the KMT has generally framed Lai as acting on the basis of irrational hostility toward Chinese spouses of Taiwanese. Likewise, it is to be questioned how influential such pro-China influencers generally are, when in fact they may actually push the Taiwanese public further away from China.
It is also to be seen if the actions of the two Japanese men may lead to copycat incidents. After all, it is possible that pro-China influencers from other countries will travel to Taiwan to carry out similar stunts, in the hopes of provoking reactions from the Taiwanese government that they could tout to their following. In this sense, it is to be questioned whether the Lai administration is simply giving such influencers what they want.