The press coverage of Chinese tourists in Taiwan has not really touched upon anything beyond the amount of business they are bringing to the nation, how much spending power they have and what they think of Taiwanese cuisine — except perhaps for some comments about how they lack culture because of the Cultural Revolution. I haven’t read much exploration into how Chinese tourists are responding to the different political system they find here.
When I bump into Chinese tourists, I ask them, out of genuine curiosity, what they think about Taiwan now that they have seen it. One person replied that the streets were very clean.
I can’t say I was too satisfied with that answer, but then I thought about it. A stranger approaches you and asks you a question. They could be anyone; they could have come to Taiwan to keep an eye on you. You’re not all that likely to say exactly what you think.
Oh, and one other thing: The streets in Taiwan really aren’t all that clean.
I have also been reading what the New York Times has to say about Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan. The newspaper’s coverage seems to be a bit more in-depth than we get here. Apparently one of the paper’s journalists hung around an airport in China and listened in to what tour groups bound for Taiwan were talking about.
The journalist heard the tour leader giving instructions to the group members: Don’t discuss politics with the locals; only say positive things about Taiwan and China and keep well away from members of the Falun Gong.
They were also reminded about simple rules of etiquette that should be observed, and about culinary differences: how Taiwanese food tended to be less salty and oily, and how it has less monosodium glutamate.
For many Chinese tourists, the most surprising thing about their trip to Taiwan is learning that the majority of people living on this island do not want Taiwan to be merged with China. This is completely at odds with what they hear at home.
The Times article highlights one issue: that Chinese are fond of asking Taiwanese whether they hope for unification. A few years ago, I was posting on some online Chinese forums, and if anyone discovered that I was in Taiwan they would ask me the same question.
Last month, I read an online article by Song Qi (宋奇) entitled “Thoughts on unification or independence while in Taipei.” The opening line says that when one talks about Taiwan the first thing that comes to mind is unification.
The author says he had asked a masters degree student at the Chinese Culture University: “Do you hope for unification?” The answer was no. The reason? With the system as it stands, the student said, people in Taiwan enjoy a life of liberty, because Taiwan is a democratic country.
For decades now the Chinese communists have been telling the public that they will unify with Taiwan, that they are committed to “liberating” Taiwan. This is why a 59-year-old retired piano factory worker mentioned in the Times piece, prior to boarding the plane in Beijing, could repeat the sentiment commonly held in China that Taiwan and China are one country.
Interestingly, when the journalist asked her on day four of her trip how she felt about Taiwanese independence, she just laughed and said: “Independence or no independence? ... To be honest, who cares?”
Clearly, just four days in a free country can wipe away years of brainwashing and propaganda foisted upon an individual living under the Chinese dictatorship.
Molly Jeng is an independent commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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