Last month, popular Taiwanese band Mayday (五月天) held concerts in China, soon followed by allegations that the band lip-synched during their performances. At first, only self-published media raised the issue, but later the Shanghai Municipal Administration of Culture and Tourism investigated it. Then, Chinese state-affiliated media including Xinhua news agency, the People’s Daily and Procuratorial Daily brought it to public attention. Then, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office at a news conference implied that the band should not have set a bad example.
The reason for such an unprecedented investigation by Chinese officials has just become clear. In a Reuters report, two Taiwanese security officials said that the campaign was led by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Publicity Department to “sway the youth vote” ahead of the presidential and legislative elections on Jan. 13.
Taiwanese intelligence officials said that the Chinese National Radio and Television Administration pressured Mayday to state that Taiwan is a part of China.
The Mayday incident became public less than 20 days before the elections, a reminder of what happened in 2016 to the Taiwanese member of the South Korean pop band Twice, Chou Tzu-yu (周子瑜). In 2016, Chou briefly displayed a Republic of China (ROC) flag on a TV show. Following that, she was banned by a number of programs and her endorsement deals were canceled. Under great pressure, Chou was compelled to recognize the “one China” policy and the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Chou was then framed as a singer who supports Taiwanese independence, and now Mayday has been forced to make a political statement. It is obvious that China is attempting to interfere with the elections. When Mayday did not comply and declare a “one China” stance, the band was accused of lip-synching.
The allegations are unfounded. The CCP treats singers and artists like those in feudal times, while oppressing and manipulating artists who believe in creative freedom.
In addition to Mayday and Chou, Taiwanese pop singers such as Jolin Tsai (蔡依林), Hebe Tian (田馥甄), Lala Hsu (徐佳瑩) and Deserts Chang (張懸) have been labeled “pro-Taiwanese independence” for absurd reasons, and they have been severely criticized by young, jingoistic “little pink” Chinese nationalists on the Internet. Beijing regards anything that goes against Chinese propaganda about its claimed sovereignty as pro-Taiwanese independence. Any singer or artist unwilling to cooperate are subject to attacks on the Internet, and their performance contracts and endorsement deals might be terminated.
The Mayday incident shows how easily people could be suppressed by China’s state apparatus. Nowadays, Beijing does not even have to come up with any excuse to interfere with the elections. It has been trying to push Taiwan into the “one China” trap.
It is not Mayday that has lip-synched. The Chinese government has been lip-synching the songs of “both sides of the Strait are one family” and “taking good care of the Taiwanese” for years. Beijing wants to force singers and artists from Taiwan to perform in accordance with its propaganda, but it will never succeed. Taiwanese singers will never include “1992 consensus” or “one China across the Strait” in their lyrics.
With the ballots in their hands, Taiwanese are to prove again to China that they will never surrender and be subjugated. It is impossible for Taiwanese to abandon democracy and freedom while embracing autocratic China. As Mayday’s lyrics go: “You are what you believe, your insistence makes you what you are.”
Jethro Wang works as a research assistant for a think tank.
Translated by Emma Liu
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
RSS