Pop singer Chang Hui-mei (張惠妹), better known
as A-mei, was forced to cancel a performance in Hangzhou on Saturday night after a "protest" by hundreds of students. The students targeted A-mei because she sang the national anthem at President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) inauguration in 2000.
Apparently, this makes A-mei an eternal "pro-Chen singer" and a lifelong "traitor."
With this development we see how the spotlight is shifting in the battlefield of cross-strait relations: Antagonism is now moving back toward the realm of popular culture.
A-mei is an internationally recognized singer who has devoted fans on both sides of the Strait. To sing at Chen's inauguration as a Taiwanese citizen was an honor for both herself and for her nation. At
the time, however, A-mei's few minutes on stage resulted in a four-year media blackout in the Chinese media. Now, once again, Beijing is using her as an example to other Taiwanese performers.
The protest, such as it was, smacked of mobilization by Chinese Communist Party hacks. After organizers of the concert canceled A-mei's show, many of her fans in China felt that their rights had been trampled on and denounced the protest. Other Chinese Internet users compiled a list of "pro-Chen, pro-green" personalities which -- hilariously enough -- included singers who have openly supported the pan-blue alliance.
By targeting someone as manifestly apolitical as A-mei, whose cultural and commercial success has shown a way forward for people on both sides of the Strait, Beijing has once again damaged its credibility -- even among Chinese. It has made A-mei an unwitting pawn and has gone a long way toward destroying a channel for cross-strait friendship. It is now resorting to an extremism that is both bizarre and neurotic and is politicizing an industry which, in this part of the world, usually avoids politics like the plague.
Subtle tactics sometimes work best in the manipulation of politics and economics. On the surface of things, most people are not able or interested to see these forces in action, but at a time of highly developed communications and of vibrant popular culture in a largely affluent society, the
effective boycott of A-mei is both pointless and counterproductive.
It shows off China's disregard for human rights and its proclivity for intolerance while reinforcing among Taiwanese businesspeople the need to minimize risk and keep a safe distance from Beijing's meddling.
The majority of people on both sides of the Strait look forward to the development of better and closer relations between Taiwan and China.
But even if there were 50 million or even 500 million people who would work to promote such relations, Beijing has managed to ensure that a sham demonstration by a few hundred cronies will destroy the work done by many people of talent and goodwill.
If Beijing continues to encourage such stupidity by targeting this and other thriving cultural markets, it can only lead to rising dissatisfaction and the erosion of trust among ordinary people, especially among its increasingly bourgeois youth.
So much for a united front.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS