Weng Darui's Shocking Warning: The CCP Has No More Tricks! From Violent Attacks to Cross-Border Suppression, Only Three Desperate Measures Left Against Taiwan!

The program interviews Weng Darui to discuss the violent attack on Akiya Akio in Taiwan, the National Unity and Progress Law, and cross-border suppression. Weng Darui believes that the CCP's attempts to learn from Taiwan, buy it off, deceive it, and disrupt it have failed, leading them to weaponize the law. He analyzes how democratic countries can counter Chinese infiltration and overseas underground police stations under economic entanglement, freedom of speech, and legal limitations.

Video Link:

Full Text:

I am currently at a summer camp in the western United States and met Professor Weng Darui.

Stan, hello.

Professor, thank you for accepting my interview. What are your thoughts on this year's summer camp?

I have been a speaker at the summer camp for several years. Of course, this is a grand event for Taiwanese people in the United States. The first feeling is one of being moved. These people left Taiwan, and we asked at the venue yesterday, some have been away for over 65 years, and some like me for over 30 years. After being away from Taiwan for so long, everyone's heart is focused on Taiwan's future and Taiwan's democracy. So, if you ask me how I feel coming here, my first feeling is being moved.

Recently, the Akiya Akio case occurred in Taiwan, and the CCP recently passed the National Unity and Progress Law. We can also see that cross-border suppression activities have become increasingly exaggerated. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Actually, this matter is about the CCP using a petty thug in Taiwan to physically attack a public figure who defends Taiwan with his words. My view is that the CCP has run out of tricks. If the CCP had better tricks, they wouldn't use such a terrible method to suppress speech in Taiwan.

So, on one hand, we cannot tolerate the use of violent means to suppress speech, but on the other hand, it reflects that the CCP is at its wit's end and has no better way to deal with Taiwan, leaving only these low-class tactics. From this perspective, I actually think it's not a bad thing, because it proves that the CCP has no other options and has to resort to such despicable tactics.

But doesn't this make you worried about overseas, because Article 63 directly states that it can also implement its violent means against organizations and individuals outside the territory of the People's Republic of China? What are your thoughts on this? Will the democratic movement overseas, or people who have opinions about the Chinese Communist Party, face threats to their lives?

I think, speaking for myself, after I started participating in public commentary, someone posted my home address online, and someone posted photos of my home online. These did not make me feel psychologically threatened, of course, there were.

Would you be concerned about your safety because of this?

Of course. What I can do is to be more vigilant in public places. When I take the MRT or High-Speed Rail in Taipei or elsewhere, I keep a greater distance from the tracks on the platform. I take these self-protection measures.

This is certainly not good, but conversely, we must consider why China introduced this law. It indicates that besides this law, they have no better methods. This goes back to what I said earlier, they are at their wit's end and have no better tricks.

Let's look at China's overall approach to Taiwan. In the very beginning, when I was young, China talked about learning from Taiwan and used

Taiwan lacks the capacity for genuine learning; attempts to buy it off were thwarted as the money was pocketed by compradors. Subsequently, the CCP sought to deceive Taiwan through promises of preferential treatment and favorable conditions for Taiwanese youth starting businesses in China, but few were fooled.

The next step was to destabilize Taiwan, a process exemplified by the current situation in the Legislative Yuan. With the presence of the pro-unification Chinese New Party in Taiwan, the CCP's strategy has progressed from attacking, buying, and deceiving Taiwan to sowing chaos within it.

However, Taiwan's democracy has grown stronger, and its society has become more prosperous, rendering these methods insufficient. Consequently, measures like the previous National Security Law and the current Law on the Promotion of National Unity are merely a new, ineffective tactic in their arsenal, following the failures of attacking, buying, deceiving, and destabilizing.

Why do I call it an ineffective tactic? Because, for instance, the Law on the Promotion of National Unity lacks penalties. It doesn't stipulate, for example, that actions detrimental to national unity will result in an eight or ten-year prison sentence; it has no punitive clauses.

Therefore, this law, firstly, has no penalties; secondly, its scope extends beyond China's borders, and it lacks the authority for sentencing, possessing no legal standing. Without penalties, it certainly lacks the right to enforcement.

In simple terms, this is propaganda. This propaganda, evolving from attacking, buying, deceiving, and destabilizing, now utilizes legal tools, weaponizing the law of a nation.

However, this weaponization of law will soon be seen through.

What approach do you believe democratic countries, such as Taiwan and the United States, should adopt to address the threat posed by countries executing cross-border suppression?

I believe that democratic nations face a far more complex challenge in dealing with China than they did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Cold War confrontation between the Soviet Union and democratic nations was not merely an ideological, political, or economic opposition; it was fundamentally a conflict between two isolated blocs.

These two isolated blocs naturally engaged in direct confrontation, creating a Cold War atmosphere. However, the current confrontation between democratic nations and China, or even Iran, is no longer solely a matter of political or ideological opposition.

During the Cold War, it was capitalism versus communism. Today, although China is nominally communist, it practices a form of jungle capitalism, even more so than American capitalism.

This shift means that the relationship between democratic countries and China is one of both confrontation and cooperation. Why confrontation and cooperation? Because when you walk into a market in the United States today, you'll find that a newly installed faucet, for instance, might be made in China.

Even if a washing machine is manufactured in the US, its current parent company might be China's Haier Group. Furthermore, even a General Motors vehicle assembled in the US may contain up to 20% of its components from China.

Therefore, during the process of confrontation, there is an inextricable interdependence. This makes the situation extremely tricky. If you decouple correctly, you might harm China; but if you decouple incorrectly, you risk harming yourselves.

Let's take an example: Trump's trade war, where tariffs were raised to 145%. A 145% tariff would essentially halt trade between the US and China. However, during this halt, consider that Apple products are overwhelmingly manufactured in China.

Imagine a smartphone with a customs declared value of $500. Add a 145% tariff, and who ultimately pays the bill? The American consumer.

If American consumers cannot afford it, then Apple would have to absorb the tariff. Such a 145% tariff is clearly unworkable for smartphones, as Chinese factories cannot afford to pay it; the burden falls on American consumers or manufacturers.

Thus, such a confrontation ultimately harms American consumers and American businesses. What was the outcome? Trump had to announce an exemption for smartphones, removing the tariff.

Therefore, this kind of confrontation requires more wisdom and attention to detail, unlike the Cold War where one would first build domestic capacity before decoupling, rather than decoupling and then attempting domestic production.

However, building domestic capacity isn't instantaneous. The loss of American manufacturing is a process that has occurred over 30 years.

This 30-year period saw the complete offshoring of American manufacturing to China. Re-establishing key manufacturing sectors in the US is not something that can be achieved in three to five years.

This is the difficulty. It's why when you see Western countries like the US, Canada, or Europe confronting China, they appear hesitant and constrained, unable to engage in a full-scale confrontation. The economic entanglement is a significant factor.

But this pertains to decoupling and economic issues. Regarding infiltration and cross-border suppression, are there any leverage points or strategies that democratic countries can implement?

Because Western countries are democracies, you have created an environment where China can use democracy to infiltrate democracy. Therefore, if you want to prevent Chinese infiltration, you must use anti-democratic methods to prevent it.

And when you use these anti-democratic methods in Western democracies, you must first gain the support of public opinion before you can do so.

So I think – can I give an example of anti-democratic methods?

No, it’s very simple. Let’s take Taiwan as an example. When Tsai Ing-wen was in power, Taiwan had a Digital Intermediary Act. This Digital Intermediary Act itself was intended to regulate online platforms.

But after it was introduced, many people said it infringed on freedom of speech. Under the guise of infringing on freedom of speech, this matter could not proceed.

And it’s the same in the United States. Xinhua News Agency, is it a news organization? Of course not, it is an organization affiliated with China. But Xinhua reporters in the United States are protected by the U.S. media’s freedom of speech and enjoy these privileges. They enjoy media privileges, but they are engaged in infiltration.

So if the United States were to classify Xinhua News Agency as an organization affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, there would certainly be claims of infringing on media freedom of speech.

So what I’m saying is that when you want to classify a news organization like Xinhua News Agency as an organization affiliated with the Communist Party, you must first let the people’s representatives know that they are not the media.

Then the people’s representatives, the members of Congress, must return to their constituencies and let their voters know that this is not the media, it is an organization affiliated with the CCP.

So in our counter-attack process, it will be more difficult. The reason it is more difficult is that in order to protect our democracy, we have adopted an open approach. You cannot use authoritarianism to counter authoritarianism, because if you use authoritarianism to counter authoritarianism, you become the same as them.

And if you become the same as them, we lose our moral legitimacy.

Xinhua News Agency operates in a gray area. The U.S. government has already classified it as such, and the U.S. government has achieved this. Xinhua News Agency no longer enjoys the protection of news media.

It used to operate in a gray area because it was nominally a newspaper and news agency.

Regarding those that are nominally standing on shaky ground, like illegal police stations, there are some in New York and California. How do you think these illegal police stations operating in the United States should be treated?

Actually, the U.S. government has already noticed these. I remember when Lai Ching-te visited New York, there was a Fujianese person who was at the forefront of the demonstration protest. Lu Jingwang and Chen Jinping, I don’t remember the names.

And these people, who play the role of underground Chinese police in Chinese associations, have reportedly been arrested by the U.S. government, according to my understanding of the news.

And I think that the U.S. law enforcement agencies and the U.S. government have noticed these things. China’s infiltration into American society continues to come up with new methods.

So, because American society is a democratic society, and the American political sphere is based on the rule of law, they must go through a period of time to find legal sources within existing laws to deal with such matters.

If existing laws cannot handle such matters, they will have to legislate anew. If new legislation is not possible, they will seek political solutions. This takes time.

I am confident in American society and Western society in this regard.

Let me give you the simplest example: the Confucius Institute. About 15 years ago, the Confucius Institute, under the guise of promoting Chinese culture, also engaged in Chinese language teaching on campuses.

I remember that at its peak, there were at least seventy to eighty-five universities in the United States that had Confucius Institutes. But after a few years, everyone realized that the Confucius Institutes were actually buying off and infiltrating the American academic community.

Most Confucius Institutes are now defunct, and some universities have directly shut them down. But this process may have taken 10 years.

So, when you talk about these so-called Chinese underground police stations, I believe that in another 10 years, Western society will be capable of dealing with these matters.

But don’t be happy, because by then the Chinese Communist Party will find new ways and new methods to infiltrate our democratic countries, so it feels like it will be endless.

It’s like the Cold War, it’s endless. We must have the idea that the competition of systems has no end.

We must not imagine that one day we will infiltrate princes and dukes and live happily ever after. We must constantly defend our way of life, and we must understand that there will always be enemies who will try to change and infiltrate our way of life.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the past, now there is the Chinese Communist Party. When the Chinese Communist Party collapses in a few years, another evil force will emerge. Because the world is polarized, and it will always be this way.

So it is right that it is endless, and we must also be prepared. If it is endless, we raise our vigilance, and there is no day when this stops.

And because we do not stop, our system and our lives can be forever guaranteed.

Thank you, Professor.

You are welcome.