Even as huge numbers of Taiwanese took to the streets last Saturday, Chi Mei Group founder Hsu Wen-lung (
That Hsu, a business tycoon who has long been a staunch supporter of the pan-green camp, should release such a statement on the day of a rally in which hundreds of thousands of people voiced their rejection of China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law is hardly coincidental. That this was shadowy attempt by China to undermine the March 26 demonstration is perfectly obvious.
Although the statement was signed by Hsu, both its content and wording suggested the work of another hand. Hsu is accustomed to speaking in Taiwanese and Japanese, and the carefully worded and neatly phrased statement is not convincing as a document voicing Hsu's own sentiments. Notably, some of the wording in the statement, such as the respectful reference to Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Hsu is an entrepreneur with a strong sense of Taiwanese identity. During former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) administration, Hsu wrote to Lee asking when he would fulfill his promise to change the country's official name. Lee wrote back, telling him to learn from the Japanese shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu, and wait patiently for the right moment to act.
Later, in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, Hsu was a key member of then-presidential candidate Chen's National Policy Advisory Committee, and was made a senior policy adviser to the president after Chen was elected. Chi Mei has long been perceived as a pro-green camp enterprise, and Hsu has weathered many hardships as a result. Having survived so long, the fact that he has released statements at this crucial juncture that fly in the face of his previously expressed ideals -- and which are contrary to the interests of the Taiwanese people -- suggests that he has been put under unbearable pressure.
If China makes an example of Hsu, other Taiwanese businesspeople investing in China will hardly dare support the pan-green camp publicly anymore. With so many ways to threaten Taiwanese business interests in China, a company need only be suspected of pro-independence leanings to put its profits and its staff in danger.
This is yet another demonstration of China's oppression of Taiwan's freedom of speech and thought. The follow-on effect will mean that not only businesspeople, but Taiwanese as a whole, will suffer from restricted freedom. Even the public's right to remain silent may be restricted.
Hsu's action should come as a wake-up call about the government's "active opening, effective management" cross-strait policy. The continual increase in the rate at which businesses are moving to China is the result of this policy, and now 37 percent of Taiwanese exports are headed for Hong Kong and China.
It is time to strike back. Lee has called on the government to make an immediate change in its China policy, abandoning blind support for "active opening" in favor of a reprise of the "no haste, be patient" policy. This is certainly worth thinking about.
The government should use this time to observe China's reaction to the anger expressed by the populace on Saturday and to the dissatisfaction of the international community.
In the meantime, the government should refrain from taking any steps to promote direct links.
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