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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS