Print

Mail

wiki links

Tycoons becoming China's pawns

The pro-unification statement of Chi Mei Group founder Hsu Wen-lung (許文龍) is a typical case of China threatening and seducing Taiwanese businesspeople with economic benefits in an effort to exercise political influence.

What was its political impact? In the short term at least, it seriously disrupted the momentum of the March 26 rally and the effectiveness of Taiwan's international propaganda. In the long term, whether it can win Taiwanese people's hearts and minds awaits further observation.

Ever since its economic reform and liberalization in the 1980s, China has become the only regime in the world that is not only economically powerful but is also opposed to freedom of expression. But Taiwan is not the first victim of Beijing's tactic of "using business to exercise influence over politics."

During the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule, China employed similar methods to force business leaders to take sides, laying the foundation for a peaceful handover. Hsu's case is a repeat of the Hong Kong experience.

During the 13-year transition period -- from the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong in 1984 to the handover in 1997 -- the most obvious change was the attitude of the territory's business leaders, as they dramatically switched their loyalty to the Chinese government.

During this period, the colonial government certainly did not wait idly by in the face of China's economic absorption. Nor did it close its eyes to the change of heart by business leaders. Instead, Britain cooperated with international forces to launch the massive Rose Garden Project, making use of the territory's foreign reserves. Both the Hong Kong International Airport and the Airport Express are products of this massive project, which was an attempt to win back the loyalty of some business leaders.

But as the 1997 deadline approached, even though the colonial government had spent much of its savings accumulated from past decades, it was unable to reverse the situation, since the territory's economic lifeline was to be completely controlled by China after the amalgamation of the two economies.

Local entrepreneurs, who fit their actions to the times, opposed the colonial government's democratic line, refused then governor Christopher Patten's political and economic plans, and helped China establish the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). They became Beijing's key troops for building the HKSAR regime.

Thus, it is not extravagant to say that Hong Kong business tycoons murdered the territory's democratic development for their economic interests.

Hsu, who was an outspoken supporter of the pan-green camp and of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), was regarded by the Chinese government as a key representative of Taiwan's "pro-independence businessmen based in China." Hsu's sudden change in "political identity" and the declaration of his support for "one China" substantially undermined the March 26 rally's effectiveness as a criticism of China and weakened the position of Taiwan's government.

This incident is an indication of China's skill in manipulating business interests for political ends. Its performance this time was on a par with the effective handling of Hong Kong-based business tycoons prior to the handover.

The Hsu announcement is an indication that China has already begun to make use of the "non-peaceful means" mandated by the "Anti-Secession" Law. Relying on a domino effect, China is first targeting those with business interests within its own jurisdiction. Hsu's predicament goes beyond whether or not he is willing to give up enormous investment in China's petrochemical industry. He also has to consider the Chi Mei Group's shareholders and workers.

Since Hsu's inner struggle may not be understood by outsiders, the pan-green camp should not hastily blame Hsu or the Chi Mei Group, and the pan-blue camp should not feel complacent over Hsu's recent pro-China statement. Otherwise, they are likely to turn into something similar to the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (a mouthpiece for the Chinese government based in Hong Kong) without even noticing it.

Of course, Taiwan isn't Hong Kong. The destiny of 23 million Taiwanese people cannot be determined by a handful of business tycoons. Hsu's retirement message following China's enactment of the Anti-Secession Law reflects the frustrations and helplessness of Taiwanese businesspeople in China in the face of their conflicting political and economic roles.

As long as there's no sign of an easing of the cross-strait situation, we can state that there will be no businessman willing to show support for the pan-green government. Increasingly, businesspeople caught on the front lines of cross-strait relations will simply bend whichever way the wind blows.

Our government should not be too resentful that Taiwan businesspeople are being used as political hostages, for no one who has received the gift of freedom and democracy will willingly give it up or exchange it for a despotic and authoritarian state. This is the biggest difference between Taiwan and Hong Kong.

When China-based Taiwanese business people are forced to endorse China's political views, Taiwan should act to prevent these statements from having a negative impact, or even engineer a positive impact. This is probably the best way of protecting our businesspeople from China's political interference.

Chiu Chui-cheng is a doctoral student at the Graduate Institute of Political Science at National Taiwan Normal University.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND LIN YA-TI
This story has been viewed 2128 times.