Premier Lin Chuan (林全) said not long ago: “I believe that the title ‘Chinese Taipei’ means the Republic of China [ROC] ... The meaning behind that title is the ROC.”
Lin’s claim reminds me of “Ah Q” (阿Q), a popular character created by Chinese writer Lu Xun (魯迅) in his 1921 book The True Story of Ah Q (阿Q正傳).
When Ah Q lost a fight and was beaten up, he simply told himself: “This was like a son beating up his own father, completely unreasonable,” in an attempt to comfort himself and convince himself that he had won a moral victory.
Asked about the WHA meeting last month, Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lee (李大維) said that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had delivered a letter to the WHO to “register our concern” over the mention of the “one China” principle in the WHA’s invitation letter. Lee said this phrase means to file a “protest.”
That was yet another expression of the Ah Q spirit. A concern is a concern; a protest is a protest. Registering a concern definitely does not mean making a protest.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) even praised Minister of Health and Welfare Lin Tzou-yien’s (林奏延) performance at the WHA, saying the national title of Taiwan had not been belittled during the meeting.
It is evident that such Ah Q-style self-comforting is the unanimous view and reaction of the Presidential Office, the Cabinet and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In response to the use of the title “Chinese Taipei” for Taiwan, the government could have used dozens of ways to show its concern or protest in public or in private, such as:
‧ It could have expressed that the title “Chinese Taipei” is “unsatisfactory and unacceptable,” and then issued public written and verbal protests, held up a protest placard at the WHA and referred to itself as “Taiwan.”
‧ It could have issued public written and verbal protests at the WHA and referred to itself as “Taiwan,” or issued written and verbal protests in private and referred to itself as “Taiwan.”
‧ It could have expressed that the title is “unsatisfactory, but reluctantly acceptable” and referred to itself as “Taiwan” instead of “Chinese Taipei,” or it could have referred to itself neither as “Taiwan” nor “Chinese Taipei,” or both as “Taiwan” and “Chinese Taipei.”
‧ It could have expressed that the title is “unsatisfactory, but acceptable,” and referred to itself as “Taiwan” instead of “Chinese Taipei,” or it could have referred to itself neither as “Taiwan” nor “Chinese Taipei,” or both as “Taiwan” and “Chinese Taipei.”
‧ Finally, and the worst of these options, it could have expressed that the title is “unsatisfactory, but acceptable” and referred to itself as “Chinese Taipei” instead of “Taiwan.”
If the Tsai administration had used the first of these alternatives, it would probably have met the humble expectations of a majority of Taiwanese.
Among these options, the preceding Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration used to choose to say that the title “Chinese Taipei” is “unsatisfactory, but reluctantly acceptable,” and referred to itself both as “Taiwan” and “Chinese Taipei.”
Unexpectedly, the Tsai administration adopted the last and worst expression, with the premier saying at the Legislative Yuan that the title “Chinese Taipei” is “unsatisfactory, but acceptable.”
It was deplorable to see the Tsai administration performing even worse than the former KMT government.
Furthermore, in the past, the term “Chinese Taipei” was only used as the title of the Taiwanese delegation at the WHA, but the minister of health and welfare urged the WHO to “support the 23 million citizens of Chinese Taipei” during his speech at the WHA, thus using the term to refer to all Taiwanese.
Taiwanese are strongly opposed to Taiwan calling itself Chinese Taipei. If Taiwan and China had really reached a prior agreement that the delegation should use “Chinese Taipei” to refer to Taiwan at the WHA, and that “the earth would move and mountains would shake” if it did not, then the Tsai administration needs to explain this to the Taiwanese public.
However, if it was possible for Taiwan to have avoided using the title “Chinese Taipei,” then it was the Tsai administration’s fault, and it should apologize to all Taiwanese.
It must stop acting like Ah Q. It may be able to deceive itself, but it will not be able to deceive the public and it may end up losing the public’s trust.
Lin Kien-tsu is a former director of Tamkang University’s Department of International Business.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS