Representatives of the publishing industry in Taiwan and China sat down in Taipei over the weekend to discuss joint ventures, especially on materials for Chinese-language education.
Despite claims by the head of the Chinese delegation, General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP) head Liu Binjie (柳斌杰), that the industry transcends political conflict and promotes understanding, Taiwanese would do well to tread carefully when dealing with their Chinese counterparts.
There is a very good reason why Taiwanese publishers have been unable to set up shop in China without a deal being struck with a local firm. It does not stem from protectionism or a fear of competition but rather from censorship.
In a country where ideas are dangerous and actionable and where newspapers are told what to publish on issues deemed sensitive — such as poverty, the environment, government corruption and contaminated food — publishers from Taiwan pose a potential threat to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) control of information.
The GAPP is China’s governing body for electronic and print publications. It enforces regulations, monitors distributors and screens books that discuss “important topics” — a long, malleable list that includes literature, former political leaders, party secrets, the Cultural Revolution, the Soviet Union, religion, national borders and translations of ancient texts.
According to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China, the GAPP announced in 2003 that it banned no less than 19 dictionaries as part of a stricter screening mechanism, which dovetailed with the erosion of freedom of expression that followed President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) rise to power that year.
The Central Propaganda Department, meanwhile, requires editors and publishers to attend indoctrination sessions to ensure that their views do not depart from CCP guidelines.
All these restrictions and controls, of course, do not apply to Taiwanese publishers.
Little wonder, then, that many books are illegal in China and only available on the black market, and that translations of foreign literature or works by Chinese dissidents can only be found in Taiwan, sending many a visiting Hong Konger on a shopping spree whenever they visit Taiwanese bookstores.
For those who doubt the divide that separates Taiwan from China on press freedom, Reporters Without Borders ranked Taiwan No. 32 worldwide last year — top of the list in Asia and 16 spots higher than the US. China was ranked at an Orwellian No. 163.
If Taiwanese publishers were to cooperate with China, they would have little say on content, be subjected to the GAPP’s censorship and in the process lose their independence.
As a result, Chinese-language textbooks — including those with Taiwanese input — would offer the 30 million people who take up Chinese each year a distorted view of history and geography, one in which Taiwan would be a province of the PRC and in which the sins of the CCP would be papered over.
Local publishers should guard against cooperating with the Chinese government lest they be complicit in the activities of a system that distorts truth and holds minds in captivity. China’s overtures should be placed in the context of its history of contempt toward — and action against — freedom of speech and the press.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS