Actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) on March 13 posted an Instagram caption after the opening of Tiffany’s Taipei flagship store two days earlier that read: “Thank you Tiffany for inviting us to Taipei China.”
We know that Yeoh knows Taipei is in Taiwan, not China, because the caption was posted following comments she made — in English — in which she said: “Thank you to Tiffany for bringing me to Taipei, because I do love this country very much.”
Her remarks and the subsequent Instagram caption were reported in Taiwan, in Chinese and English-
language media such as Radio Free Asia, and overseas, including her home country, Malaysia, and online social media platforms such as Reddit.
In the Taipei Times, the issue has sparked a debate between Institute for National Defense and Security Research visiting fellow Sasha Chhabra and Marcel Oppliger, a Chilean journalist and writer living in Taipei.
Writing on Saturday last week (“Yeoh is welcome any time,” page 8), Oppliger disagreed with Chhabra’s suggestion that Taiwan should impose a lifetime entry ban on Yeoh and prohibit government funding for her films (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8). Oppliger said this reaction — which Chhabra himself acknowledged was “severe” — was inappropriate for a country that espouses democracy and personal freedoms, adding that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would regard the headline “Michelle Yeoh banned from Taiwan” as something of a propaganda coup.
On Tuesday, Chhabra penned a response, “Borders are a part of a country’s sovereignty,” saying that Yeoh had acted “in a premeditated way to join China’s cognitive warfare and propaganda against Taiwan.” He wrote that the CCP would not like the headline, as it would suggest that Beijing did not have control over the borders of one if its “provinces.”
The two writers have different interpretations of Yeoh’s motivations. Chhabra sees her Instagram caption as a calculated, cynical collusion with the CCP’s propaganda machine; Oppliger is willing to believe that it was simply a cold calculation of reputational and financial gain and loss.
However, both men seem to agree that an opportunity exists to use the situation, reported internationally in Chinese and English media, to emphasize Taiwan’s message, that it is a sovereign country deserving of respect, even if their way of framing that opportunity, and how to go about capitalizing on it, differs radically.
Here is another interpretation: During her live comments, in an unguarded moment, Yeoh said what she knew instinctively to be true; her Instagram caption reflected what her, or Tiffany’s, public relations team wanted the world to see, under implicit or explicit pressure from Beijing.
Comments on Yeoh’s Instagram post reflect the debate, for and against, Taiwan’s sovereignty, either expressing disappointment in Yeoh or praising her choice of words. The point is the implications were not lost on either side; there was no normalization of the term “country,” only an awareness and highlighting of why it is so contentious in this context.
Punishing Yeoh might be misunderstanding the nature of the opportunity. It might be more instructive to ask why the CCP is so sensitive about how people speak of Taiwan in the international media, which it cannot control, as it does with its own media.
US academic and historian Stephen Kotkin, who has written about the collapse of the Soviet Union, has said that authoritarian systems are strong yet brittle. The military drills around Taiwan on Tuesday were an expression of China’s strength; its sensitivity to news of any entertainer calling Taiwan a country is an expression of weakness and the CCP leadership’s awareness of the brittle nature of its hold on power. The brittle nature of its narrative on Taiwan derives from its inability to withstand scrutiny.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS