Talk:Anti-Secession Law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is a dispute between two versions. To see the other version: [1], to compare: [2]

/Archive1 - the proposed law (green paper) by a scholar Yu Yuanzhou, taken from www.peacehall.com.

"suggestion by a scholar"[edit]

"suggestion by a scholar" sounds very silly and awkward. Why not used "proposed" in parenthesis then? --Jiang 21:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duly moved as you suggested. Thank you. -- Kaihsu 22:13, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Rename of this article[edit]

The proposed law is now titled 反分裂国家法 (literally anti-sucession of the state law). Should this article be renamed accordingly? See also google search about the change. — Instantnood 19:31, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

The proposed law that will be put before the full NPC is different from the one proposed by Yu Yuanzhou. I think it's necessary to modify this article to reflect the actual law, and reference Yu Yuanzhou as a possible origin. then move. --Jiang 01:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jiang, for working on this. We need to clean this up and make the text tighter, but maybe later.... – Kaihsu 10:56, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be merged with this one; Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China? (Free Citizen 07:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

You do realise the different purposes that Wikipedia and Wikisource serve? enochlau (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-floating currency reform?![edit]

Whoa, the proposed currency is fixed to gold? WTF? Which major industrial country still has a non-floating currency? This deserves some extensive coverage over the ramifications, especially in regards to trade policy with the US. If the renminbi is no longer informally fixed to the dollar, then that could drastically change the competitiveness of Chinese exports. I'm not an expert on the subject so I don't feel comfortable analyzing it, but someone who knows more about it should do a write-up. Kent Wang 17:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reaction from the international community[edit]

This article missed the reaction from the international community, which needs to be supplemented.Mababa 02:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modified[edit]

The historical claim is based on Chinese settlement of Taiwan during the Ming and Qing dynasties; including formal incorporation into the Qing empire in 1885 by Emperor Guangxu.

The sentence above was modified. It looks obsurd to use settlements for claims of sovereignty. Settlement does not imply sovereignty, otherwise Israle could have the sovereignty of Gaza already. Or perhaps Afican countries could claim all over the world since every single Homo Sapien springs from African settlements in other part of the world. If this sentence is the PRC official position, please restore that text when the source is attributed and refered. During the Ming dynasty, Taiwan was under Dutch rule. Even the Tungning Empire is an independent country signs trade treaties with western countries. That sentece does not comform the historical reality.Mababa 03:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A lot of things on this page may look absurd to people who don't understand Chinese thinking. This is a difficult article to write, because on the one hand it needs to describe accurately the position China has taken and on the other hand, being in the _English_ Wikipedia, it does need to attempt to explain that in a way that an English-speaking Westerner can potentially understand, which is hard. As far as settlements leading to sovreignty, that is not unusual in history; large parts of the land in the US is under US sovreignty at least partly because settlers kept moving into it until they were the overwhelming majority (the entire Eastern seaboard was settled in this fashion while the colonies were still under English control; later the US itself did this in such locations as the Northwest Territory, Texas, and Hawaii). The example you give, of Israel, is arguably another example (see Kibbutz) of this phenomenon (although, Israel did also have a pre-existing historical connection with the land, albeit not in recent times). I do not think it is unusual for a government of China to base a claim to the island of Taiwan on settlement that happened during the Ming and Qing dynasties, and I doubt whether this is one of the more contested points of the whole issue between the ROC and PRC. However, I am by no means an expert on Chinese thinking (and in fact don't really understand the thinking behind the One China policy at all). --Jonadab, 2006 Jan 28.
By contrast, the pan-blue coalition has stated that they support a one China, different interpretations and the 92 consensus and would be willing to negotiate with the PRC on those terms. It is worth of noting that the so-called "one China, different interpretations" interpretation supported by the Taiwanese pan-blue coalition has been rejected by the PRC officials as part of the PRC defined 92 consensus.

Sentences above removed. The pan-blue did not support the one China, different interpretations and the 92 consensus as a response specifically toward the enactment of the anti-secession law. That was their general value all the time. Most of the major pan-blue party still condemn the law.[3] Only the New party, a small negligible minor party, specifically resorted the one-china definition as part of their response.[4]Mababa 04:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Taiwan also expresses skepticism on the PRC's offer of "equal status", pointing out that the PRC still consistantly opposes its participation in international bodies such as the WHO. -- Can you cite a reference?
http://www.mac.gov.tw/english/english/macpolicy/bj8906-1.htm -- See entry #30 70.57.139.181 06:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Yes but all of these statements were made before the offer of equal status. I'm looking for a statement that the MAC or anyone else made after Hu's four point speech or in response to the anti-secession law that says in effect "we don't trust Beijing because of its position on WHO". Roadrunner 06:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is a news on MAC's response in much more detail.[5] MAC did not specifically referred to the WHO issue, but did blasted the law as an `irrational act'.Mababa 06:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwanese scholar also suggests that Wen's analogy between US the anti-cession law and PRC anti-cession law was logically unsound by pointing out that Taiwan was never part of PRC.[6] A dispute perhaps worth of being reflected in the article for the both sides.Mababa 06:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ROC would not exist if independece were declared?[edit]

Jiang left the following in the edit summary: " ROC would not exist if independence was declared; they made it clear the law was aimed at a specific grp, not Taiwan in general "

According to the text of the law, independence under whatever form or banner (以任何形式獨立) is also independence. IMHO this will include equating Taiwan with ROC (independence by adopting the banner of ROC) and officially renounce the claim on the continent. — Instantnood 11:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

This law applies to Taiwan in general. Whoever acts this Anti-Secession Law only points at the green camp in Taiwan really underestimate and dare to question the determination by Mainland China to take over Taiwan if peaceful means don't work to make Taiwan a special administration region under PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.174.135.185 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed law-clean up[edit]

clean up tagged

This article is way too long. The proposed law by the PRC scholar should be isolated into a separate article. The historical introduction should be extracted from that section and incoporated into the Anti-secession law article.Mababa 05:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is far from being too long. I dont know what you mean by "historical introduction"--Jiang 22:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Really? It seems loose and discordantto have two laws, one passed and one proposed, to be listed here in one article, IMO.

When I mean historical introduction, I was refering to the segement from "Although Taiwan was ceded to Japan in the treaty......" to "Premier Wen Jiabao pronounced to a group of Chinese expatriates in London that serious consideration of such a law would be taken." Mababa 23:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

anti-annexation law[edit]

is it supposed to be "anti-annexation" law or "anti anti-session law"? If you translate word by word from chinese (反反國家分裂法) it's "anti anti-session," but it does sound a bit awkward. Is there any official translation? Wareware 12:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it refeered to as what you mentioned, as well as "反併吞法" ("anti-annexation law")... I don't think there's an official name for it yet since it is still proposed.--Loren 14:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some information on US congressional reaction[edit]

There could be some useful information on the US congress reactions in the FAPA link above. Mababa 05:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mainlnd China[edit]

Instntnood has placed this in his mainland China category. This is entirely incorrect. First, since it directly relates to how the PRC thinks it is dealing with it's own (claimed) provinces, specifically Taiwan it is incorrect to use the term mainland China, which excludes Taiwan. Second, national laws dealing with interactions of member states specifically aren't regional laws. SchmuckyTheCat 14:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes from the political point of view it's deal with the PRC. But as a law it is only applied, valid and applicable within mainland China. It is not a national law as stated in the Annex III of the basic laws of the two SARs. — Instantnood 15:01, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the article say something to that effect? "state press mentioned explicitly that the law was not intended to be applied to Hong Kong and Macao." Good, gotcha covered. You say Article III is the legal basis for that? Add it! don't leave it out expecting people to find it in a talk pge. SchmuckyTheCat 15:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Former Proposal[edit]

I moved that section of the former proposal to it's own article. That much text about a completely different law was confusing. Both rticles are still marked with cleanup SchmuckyTheCat 15:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have incoporated part of the background introduction from the proposed law article. I also removed the clean up tag and trimed the external links.Mababa 03:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895[edit]

An elaboration of this treaty would be helpful. (Free Citizen 07:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

In internal link has been added. Case closed. (219.95.6.254 09:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Did the state press really said this?[edit]

In announcing the drafting of the law in December, 2004, the state press mentioned explicitly that the law was not intended to be applied to Hong Kong and Macao. This statement makes no sense as the law was specifically drafted to deal with the Taiwan issue. How does Hong Kong and Macau fit in? (Free Citizen 10:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Before the details of the law came out, ppl in Hong Kong expressed concern that it would be a general "Anti-Secession Law" aimed at everybody (Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, what have you), and so would in effect legislate by stealth Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong (a section dealing with sedition and treason, and very very controversial in Hong Kong).
This is why the state press came out to say that it wouldn't apply to Hong Kong and Macao, which it doesn't.
After the details of the law came out, it turned out that it wasn't an "Anti-Secession Law" per se so much as an "Anti-Taiwanese Independence Law". --Sumple (Talk) 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

I have protected the article, so you could reach some compromise on the talk page. Edit warring is not a way to solve conflicts. Please ask for unprotection, when you are ready. abakharev 01:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article is quite poor stylistically. E.g. the opening line of the Background section misuses "although" --Sumple (Talk) 22:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted the change requested. Please tell me then a compromize is reached for the article to unportected, or if you believe I should take my chances with unprotecting it straight away abakharev 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War[edit]

The versions of Bonafide.Histula and RevolverOcelot are quite similar. What is the main subject of the warring? Maybe we can have a Poll or an RfC? abakharev 03:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to "Certified.Gangsta"[edit]

Please desist from deleting references and introducing typos ("angritly"), and non-NPOV content into this page.

As for your objection over the name "Republic of China", the references are to: (copied from article) ^ http://www.mac.gov.tw/gb/gb/mlpolicy/pos/9504/po9504ch.htm Summary Results, Opinion Poll on Cross-Strait Relations, Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China ^ http://www.mac.gov.tw/gb/gb/mlpolicy/pos/880511/po8805.htm Fourth Major Opinion Poll on Mainland Policies, Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China

Please note that: The "Republic of China" is the name of the government in Taiwan. If you have a problem with that, please lodge your complaints with the Republic of China government at www.gio.gov.tw.

Domains ending in .gov.tw are owned by the government in("on") Taiwan, being the Republic of China government. If you have a problem with a "Chinese" government administering Taiwan, you can request a constitutional amendment by first becoming elected to the Legislative Yuan.

The documents are in GB encoding. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the English versions of these documents. If you would like to contribute positively on this front, perhaps you can do a better job of searching for these. If you object to Taiwan using the Chinese language, which I know you do, please lodge your complaint with the Republic of China government at www.gio.gov.tw.

Final point, Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China (ROC), not Taiwan, unfortunately. --Sumple (Talk) 09:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man what are you tryna do? Be sarcastic? Well I'm really disappointed at your comment in ur last edit summary. Calling me stupid is definitely a PA. As to your points above, unfortunately, your favorite PRC doesn't want to admit the existence of the ROC government in Taiwan maybe you should inform them they are not administering the 23 million population in Taiwan, so claiming the issue as a domestic affair is bootless and to quote you "stupidity to the extreme". Yes, people who are neutral should recognize the vast difference between Taiwan and China. I do have a problem with a Chinese government administering Taiwan, but not now when we have a democracy, the name is strictly formality (brought by KMT anyway when they came from China and massacred a whole bunch of Taiwanese in that 2-28 incident). My real concern is a Chinese government (meaning PRC) annexing Taiwan, I don't really care about the difference between ROC and Taiwan. Just to tell you I'm a really poor reader of simplified character and never lived in Taiwan in my life so accusing me possessing strong POV is unjustified. I just felt wikipedia need to educate the general public in a more neutral perspective so therefore my contribution is essential especially in the midst of Chinese communist propaganda administrators who are apparently gang patrolling these articles. As to Taiwan using Mandarin as the official language, I do believe Taiwan should make English and Taiwanese as well as Mandarin all official languages. But that's another issue, so let's not go that far. Anyway, final point, I realized you didn't read my new username properly, unfortunately.--Certified.Gangsta 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

I have protected this article due to edit warring. All parties need to come a conclusion and resolution instead of needlessly edit warring. If this cannot be resolved via concensus, I suggest that all parties look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and methods such as asking for a third-party's opinion, straw polls or RfC. Thank you. enochlau (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why not include the reaction of Singapore?[edit]

As the third Chinese country in the world, Singapore's reaction is very important here/

Other Chinese secession groups[edit]

I realize this law was drafted in the event of a Taiwanese declaration of independence, but surely the PRC is aware of other provinces that have secession groups, such as Tibet and Xinjiang. Is there not a law in place to prevent them (or any other province) from seceding as well? If so, it should be linked to this article. --Canuckguy (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang are not independent nations-states, so there is no need for an "anti-secession" law for them. Readin (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm sure that the PRC doesn't regard any of the three as independent nation states (Taiwan is a province, while Tibet and Xinjiang are autonomous regions), wouldn't such an act be a recognition of Taiwan as an independent nation then? Also, if there is such a law on the books only for Taiwan, then what law is in place to prevent Tibet and others from seceding (aside from military crackdowns)?--Canuckguy (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


PRC already has domestic anti-subversion laws for Tibet and Xinjiang. In the case of Taiwan, as it is common knowledge that PRC does not have control of Taiwan (although it is claimed), it wanted to provide a clear legal basis to mobilise the People's Liberation Army against Taiwan. It also served as a clear signpost to the Taiwanese where the line is drawn.
Nothing in the legislation recognised Taiwan as an independent nation because PRC can't make this kind of laws for a foreign country. However, it is interesting that, even though "One China" or "China" was mentioned many times, it never said that PRC is that "One China" or "China". Arguably it allowed for Taiwan and mainland China to be reunified under a different union without contravening the legislation--Pyl (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Anti-Secession Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just done a minor update to an external link - on a related topic that doesn't yet seem to have its own page on the Wikipedia. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Secession_Law&oldid=1204892615"