On May 24, China's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman, Zhang Mingqing (
As a consequence, the international edition of People's Daily on May 31 directly called Chi Mei Group Chairman Hsu Wen-lung (
Peng condemned Hsu using the vocabulary of the Cultural Revolution, calling him a disgrace to the people for claiming that many "comfort women" became military sex slaves voluntarily. Later, on May 3, Taiwan's stock market plunged as some Chinese scholars discussed the issue of economic sanctions on Taiwan.
Yet a Taiwan Affairs Office official had said on May 2 that in the near future, China would no longer specify by name those who are "green [pro-Taiwan independence] Taiwanese businesspeople." Zhang also pointed out on May 4 that he had heard nothing about the alleged tightening of reviews of Taiwan-ese investment applications, nor had he read any similar reports about Chinese actions on this matter. Obviously, China was worried that harsh accusations and sanctions could damage Taiwanese businesspeople's confidence in making investments there, and therefore damage China's economy.
In fact, legal investments by both blue and green Taiwanese businesspeople have contributed to China's economic develop-ment. But rumors about sanctions on Chi Mei are still everywhere.
The above situation reflects two problems. First, Zhang's remarks were self-contradictory. Wasn't his statement that Beijing does not welcome pro-independence Taiwanese businesspeople political interference with the economy? Second, both People's Daily and Xinhua News Agency are China's mouthpieces, and the Taiwan Affairs Office is a government agency, while other media are under tight control. We cannot ignore their messages. Nor can we ignore the differences among the messages caused by China's internal power struggles. Nevertheless, Beijing's intentions to interfere with the economy through politics and affect politics through the economy are obvious.
This is not the first time China has done this. The Chinese media came up with a list of green Taiwanese businesspeople in China when President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was first elected in 2000. Rumor also had it in March 2001 that Hsu's factories in Zenjiang, Jiangsu Province, were forced to shut down. Similar cases have repeatedly happened, proving that China's communist party is still driven by politics, and that China is far from globalization. Because of this, such oppressive policies against Taiwanese businesspeople for political reasons will constantly occur to different degrees. Taiwanese businesepeople in China have to take necessary preventive measures.
When this problem occurs, we must appeal to the international community -- including the WTO, APEC and the International Court -- to seek justice.
China did not impose any additional political requirements when it first attracted foreign businesses, but it has added political requirements now. Its "market economy" is clearly a piece of deception directed by and acted upon by the Chinese government. If it can gain its purpose by pressuring Taiwanese, Beijing can surely do the same to American, Japanese and other businesspeople in the future. In that case, what free and fair market competitiveness can we have?
China has recently striven to gain the status of a "full market economy." But Assistant US Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration James Jochum says that China has years to go before it can receive this status, as the US Trade Act stipulates fundamental reforms of its currency policy, labor rights and government interference in the private sector. China's threats against Taiwanese businesspeople were certainly this sort of government interference in the economy.
Although Beijing is unable to gain this status from Washington, Malaysia surprisingly granted China full market economy status in a joint communique when Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi visited Beijing in late May. It's evident that China has thus tried to cover up its vicious image and actions.
Recently announced Chinese personnel appointments indicate whether or not China is a full market economy. Consider the appointment of Jiang Chaoliang (蔣超良) as the chairman and party secretary of the state-owned Bank of Communications, and of Zhang Jianguo (張建國) as the bank's president and deputy party secretary. Which market economy would appoint party secretaries to lead its enterprises? Isn't a party secretary in such a position a symbol of political interference with the economy?
Taiwanese businesspeople should take this into account when making investments in China. If Beijing repeatedly carries out economic threats against Taiwanese businesspeople, the government should also help them to seek assistance from international organizations.
Paul Lin is a political commentator in New York.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS