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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS