By Li Muzi, Vision Times
Taiwanese authorities have formally revoked the dependent residency of Qian Li (錢麗), a China-born employee at tech giant ASUS, after an investigation found she repeatedly used social media to promote “armed reunification” with Beijing and openly advocate for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The National Immigration Agency (NIA) ruled that her actions posed a potential threat to national security and social stability. Her national health insurance and work eligibility were terminated immediately. ASUS confirmed on Dec. 2 that she had completed the company’s departure procedures.
Beijing views Taiwan as a breakaway province that must be reclaimed by any means necessary, even if that means resorting to military force. Taiwan maintains its de facto independence and democratic rule as the Republic of China (ROC), which governed all of China before being driven off the mainland by communist rebels in 1949.
RELATED: Taiwan Cracks Down on Dual PRC Citizenship Amid Loyalty Debate
National security concerns
For the best of our weekly content！
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
According to the NIA, Qian Li operated a political Facebook page titled “People’s Liberation Army of China (中國人民解放軍)”, where she repeatedly expressed support for Beijing’s “武統” (meaning reunification by force, or the violent annexation of Taiwan).
Following inter-agency review, authorities concluded her conduct violated Article 14, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of Taiwan’s regulations governing residency for Mainland spouses. The clause allows revocation when an individual is deemed likely to “endanger national security or social stability.”
The NIA emphasized that once residency is revoked, the person is not allowed to work, loses access to national health insurance, and any further violations will be handled by the appropriate law-enforcement agencies.
ASUS responds
After Qian received notice of her revoked residency, ASUS’ human resources unit contacted government agencies for guidance. In a statement, ASUS said it had “strictly followed the decision of the competent authorities” and processed her departure accordingly. The company added that it “respects all judicial and governmental rulings and will provide full cooperation.”
Qian reacted furiously, posting online that the decision constituted “political persecution” with the aim of terrorizing her and her family. She asserted that she had lived in Taiwan for 18 years, participated in local community programs, and worked on corporate labor welfare issues. She added that authorities were “suppressing speech and framing her.”
She also vowed to file an administrative appeal within 30 days to seek restoration of her residency and “compensation.”
But her most controversial statement came when she urged Taiwanese citizens to “Give the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) a chance to govern in Taiwan.” The comment triggered widespread public backlash and reaffirmed official concerns that her messaging carried explicit political and national-security implications.
A slippery slope
Before the ruling, several lawmakers urged caution, emphasizing that Taiwan, as a democracy, must carefully review any decision involving deprivation of residency. However, the NIA ultimately concluded that Qian’s conduct aligned with hostile political advocacy, not protected speech.
Officials determined her actions “posed a danger to Taiwan’s national security and social stability,” prompting the decision to cancel her residency and work authorization.
Taiwan’s Northern Society (北社), a longstanding civic group, expressed strong support for the government’s decision. At a legislative press conference, the group stated that Qian’s pro-CCP advocacy, repeated postings supporting a violent reunification and references to PRC legal frameworks had a “clear hostile intent.”
They added that Taiwan must ensure its immigration and residency system are not used as “political tools” by individuals with explicit united-front objectives. Supporters argued the ruling helps protect Taiwan’s democratic system. “When speech crosses from personal opinion to active promotion of enemy political goals, residency revocation is legal and necessary,” wrote one user in response.
The case also mirrors several recent incidents involving other Mainland spouses whose residency was revoked after publicly promoting CCP unification through armed force.
Public reaction: National security vs. free speech?
Public discussion was largely split along two fronts:
Security concerns
Many Taiwanese argue that someone who openly promotes “giving the CCP a chance to govern Taiwan” while enjoying residency benefits raises serious infiltration risks. Some noted that allowing such individuals to continue living and working in Taiwan could provide Beijing with avenues for political influence operations and further erosion of Taiwanese citizens’ rights.
Civil liberties concerns
A minority voiced concern about potential overreach, urging the government to ensure that national-security decisions remain tied to clear, actionable threats rather than mere political expression. Still, the dominant sentiment across social platforms leans toward caution, given escalating cross-Strait tensions and Beijing’s aggressive united-front campaigns.
The Qian Li case underscores a rapidly evolving challenge for Taiwan: Balancing democratic freedoms with national-security imperatives amid escalating political warfare from Beijing. The government’s decision signals a tougher stance toward PRC-linked political messaging when it crosses into what authorities deem hostile or destabilizing activities.
Original article
Comments