On May 24, China's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman, Zhang Mingqing (
As a consequence, the international edition of People's Daily on May 31 directly called Chi Mei Group Chairman Hsu Wen-lung (
Peng condemned Hsu using the vocabulary of the Cultural Revolution, calling him a disgrace to the people for claiming that many "comfort women" became military sex slaves voluntarily. Later, on May 3, Taiwan's stock market plunged as some Chinese scholars discussed the issue of economic sanctions on Taiwan.
Yet a Taiwan Affairs Office official had said on May 2 that in the near future, China would no longer specify by name those who are "green [pro-Taiwan independence] Taiwanese businesspeople." Zhang also pointed out on May 4 that he had heard nothing about the alleged tightening of reviews of Taiwan-ese investment applications, nor had he read any similar reports about Chinese actions on this matter. Obviously, China was worried that harsh accusations and sanctions could damage Taiwanese businesspeople's confidence in making investments there, and therefore damage China's economy.
In fact, legal investments by both blue and green Taiwanese businesspeople have contributed to China's economic develop-ment. But rumors about sanctions on Chi Mei are still everywhere.
The above situation reflects two problems. First, Zhang's remarks were self-contradictory. Wasn't his statement that Beijing does not welcome pro-independence Taiwanese businesspeople political interference with the economy? Second, both People's Daily and Xinhua News Agency are China's mouthpieces, and the Taiwan Affairs Office is a government agency, while other media are under tight control. We cannot ignore their messages. Nor can we ignore the differences among the messages caused by China's internal power struggles. Nevertheless, Beijing's intentions to interfere with the economy through politics and affect politics through the economy are obvious.
This is not the first time China has done this. The Chinese media came up with a list of green Taiwanese businesspeople in China when President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was first elected in 2000. Rumor also had it in March 2001 that Hsu's factories in Zenjiang, Jiangsu Province, were forced to shut down. Similar cases have repeatedly happened, proving that China's communist party is still driven by politics, and that China is far from globalization. Because of this, such oppressive policies against Taiwanese businesspeople for political reasons will constantly occur to different degrees. Taiwanese businesepeople in China have to take necessary preventive measures.
When this problem occurs, we must appeal to the international community -- including the WTO, APEC and the International Court -- to seek justice.
China did not impose any additional political requirements when it first attracted foreign businesses, but it has added political requirements now. Its "market economy" is clearly a piece of deception directed by and acted upon by the Chinese government. If it can gain its purpose by pressuring Taiwanese, Beijing can surely do the same to American, Japanese and other businesspeople in the future. In that case, what free and fair market competitiveness can we have?
China has recently striven to gain the status of a "full market economy." But Assistant US Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration James Jochum says that China has years to go before it can receive this status, as the US Trade Act stipulates fundamental reforms of its currency policy, labor rights and government interference in the private sector. China's threats against Taiwanese businesspeople were certainly this sort of government interference in the economy.
Although Beijing is unable to gain this status from Washington, Malaysia surprisingly granted China full market economy status in a joint communique when Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi visited Beijing in late May. It's evident that China has thus tried to cover up its vicious image and actions.
Recently announced Chinese personnel appointments indicate whether or not China is a full market economy. Consider the appointment of Jiang Chaoliang (蔣超良) as the chairman and party secretary of the state-owned Bank of Communications, and of Zhang Jianguo (張建國) as the bank's president and deputy party secretary. Which market economy would appoint party secretaries to lead its enterprises? Isn't a party secretary in such a position a symbol of political interference with the economy?
Taiwanese businesspeople should take this into account when making investments in China. If Beijing repeatedly carries out economic threats against Taiwanese businesspeople, the government should also help them to seek assistance from international organizations.
Paul Lin is a political commentator in New York.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS