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.
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