Following the invitation of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), a Chinese university tour group visited Taiwan on an exchange trip. Regarding Taiwan’s win at the World Baseball Softball Confederation’s Premier12, Song Siyao (宋思瑤), a female student from Fudan University, said the tour group “would like to congratulate China, Taipei team on their win. We wish mainland China and Taiwan compatriots can be like the team Chinatrust Brothers and work together for the motherland to take baseball to a higher level.”
Belittling Taiwan by referring to it as “China, Taipei” and attributing the accomplishment of our team as belonging to the “motherland” subtly conveys China’s decisive stance on “reunification.” Upon hearing such remarks, one cannot help but feel angry.
In October, two Chinese people caused disturbances at an event related to Hong Kong in Taipei’s Ximending (西門町) area. The severity of the Chinese university tour group’s actions are far worse. It is baffling that the government has taken no action in response.
I support cross-strait exchanges and agree with Tsinghua University Chinese Communist Party committee secretary Qiu Yong’s (邱勇) words that “the youth represent hope and are the architects of the future.”
I also hope that “young people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will have more opportunities to get to know each other and build meaningful relationships.”
However, a guest should exhibit basic courtesy to their host — one cannot stand on Taiwanese soil and spread China’s “reunification” rhetoric.
If the situation were reversed, and Taiwanese were to openly advocate for Taiwanese independence while in China, what would happen to them?
Some might say that the difference between Taiwan and China lies in respect for the individual and freedom of speech. In Taiwan, everyone has the right to express their views freely. Today, if it were Taiwanese that were openly promoting “reunification” in Taiwan, presenting the view as their own, with talk of becoming one big “family,” their right to an opinion should naturally be respected.
However, when a Chinese student tour group visits Taiwan for an exchange, they should comply with Taiwan’s policies, uphold reciprocity and dignity, and follow legal norms. The remarks made by the tour group do not fall within the scope of free speech — rather, they are an encroachment of China’s “reunification” agenda. It was an attempt to use subtle language to convey China’s domineering message of “reunification” and deliberately diminish Taiwan’s identity as a nation. It is entirely inappropriate.
The Mainland Affairs Council has reiterated that, “Mainland Chinese individuals must not engage in conduct that undermines our sovereignty, downgrades Taiwan, or violates our laws and regulations. Violators will be dealt with in accordance with law,” and that “the people of Taiwan are warm and hospitable, but we do not welcome disrespectful troublemakers.”
Article 12 of the Regulations on Permission for Entrance of People of the Mainland Area Into the Taiwan Area (大陸地區人民進入臺灣地區許可辦法) stipulates that Chinese entering Taiwan for professional exchanges who contravene the principles of reciprocity and dignity would have their permits revoked or canceled, and their entry or exit permits may be voided.
The words of the tour group’s representative, Song, clearly contravene the principles of reciprocity and dignity, and constitute the improper spread of Chinese “reunification” rhetoric. According to the regulations, Song’s remarks were an illegal act. Thus, the government should take effective measures.
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself