President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) decision to change the name of state-owned companies and overseas offices is to be applauded.
For far too long, state-owned companies have dragged along with them a name stemming from the middle of the previous century.
This was when they were part of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) China-based empire: China Airlines, China Shipbuilding, Chinese Petroleum and China Steel reflected the KMT's claim to rule over all of China.
The fact that we are now in the 21st century requires a name change that reflects the present-day reality that these companies are part of the infrastructure of a new Taiwan and have no links with China.
All too often, these companies were perceived as being "Chinese," leading to an endless series of confusing incidents, such as the painful headline a few years ago that a Chinese airliner had crashed, when it was in fact a China Airlines
aircraft.
Chen's move to change the name of overseas offices is also to be welcomed: in most countries, the offices are referred to as the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office."
As everyone knows, they do more than represent "Taipei," but the rather paranoid condition of the KMT and the People First Party -- and their renewed majority in the legislature -- have obstructed an update of the reality.
The fate of these proposed changes in the wake of the pan-blue election victory remains unclear.
Still, there are some peculiar reactions to be heard around the world.
In a US Department of State press briefing last Monday, deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said -- with a straight face -- that "we are not supportive of them [the name changes]."
He added that "these changes of terminology for government-controlled enterprises or economic and cultural offices abroad" would appear to unilaterally change Taiwan's status, and for that reason Washington could not be supportive of them.
So, let us try to understand Ereli.
We cannot refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan"? We should instead continue to refer to Taiwanese companies as "China-something"?
This defies all logic, and we hope that the State Department will pull its head out of the clouds very soon.
China should actually be all too happy that Taiwan is not competing with them anymore -- whether it be for sovereignty, or a name.
Ereli also wants us to believe that changing the name of a company is somehow changing Taiwan's status.
Would this mean that changing the name of American Airlines or US Steel Corp changes the status of the US? The answer should be clear.
The situation is of course a bit different with the overseas representative offices. There we have a bit of a history to deal with.
When the US and other nations still had diplomatic ties with the KMT, these offices were referred to as an "embassy" or a "consulate."
When the KMT lost recognition as the government representing China, these offices were renamed, first to the Coordinating Council for North American Affairs, and later -- when Taipei became a bit more democratic -- to Taipei Representative offices.
So it is only logical: The names of these offices should be updated to reflect reality.
So we suggest that Chen move ahead and let Taiwan be "Taiwan."
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of the Washington-based Taiwan Communique.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS