The People’s Republic of China (PRC) likes to promote that its constitution enshrines freedom of religion, as well as the freedom not to believe in a religion, and bans discrimination on the grounds of religion or lack thereof. The important — but unstated — caveat is that religion must be state-sanctioned.
The PRC also likes to send delegations to international events, including religious gatherings. However, it is often reluctant to play by the rules of such gatherings (as Taiwanese know all too well), a tendency it demonstrated once again this week when 17 Chinese delegates left the South Korean city of Yeosu in a huff because they had not been able to get the World Fellowship of Buddhists (WFB) to toss out a delegation of Tibetan Buddhists from a biannual gathering.
The WFB was founded in May 1950 to bring together representatives of different Buddhists sects, be they of the Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana traditions, and, quoting from the fellowship’s Web site: “To secure unity, solidarity and brotherhood amongst Buddhists.”
Chinese delegations have attended other WFB gatherings where Tibetan delegations were present, such as the previous one, held in Sri Lanka. The problem this time, apparently, was the make-up of the Tibetan delegation, which included Samdhong Rinpoche, a monk and former prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile, and Peme Chhinjor, minister of religion and culture in the government and the most senior member of the Cabinet.
On Tuesday, three Tibetan delegates were forced to leave a delegates’ assembly meeting after the Chinese threatened to boycott it and the WFB secretary-general conceded China’s demand, but on Tuesday night it was the Chinese who walked out of the opening ceremony because the Tibetans refused to leave. The Chinese said they did not want to share the same venue as people they said represented the Tibetan government-in-exile.
Chhinjor told the Korea Herald that organizers had asked him to go outside because of the Chinese complaints, but he refused because he had been invited by the conference organizers, he is a member of the WFB and “this is [South] Korea, not Beijing.” He also downplayed the incident, saying it was “Nothing so special, Chinese are always like that.”
What was special was the reaction of the event’s organizers, the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism, who accused the Chinese delegation of “lacking the least respect and consideration” for a religious event. While saying the departure of the Chinese was regrettable, the order said in a statement that: “The Chinese delegates only prioritized their own political agenda by refusing to accept the presence of a Tibetan delegation officially registered as a member of the WFB.”
The statement went on to demand a sincere apology from the Chinese delegation and a promise that such an incident would never happen again. The Jogye Order also said it sympathized with the religious activities of Tibetan Buddhists and would “seriously reconsider” ties with Chinese Buddhists.
The Chinese delegates may not have had much of a say in the matter, given that media reports of their departure noted that they left in a vehicle provided by the Chinese embassy in South Korea. It is highly likely that Chinese embassy officials demanded they toe the party line and leave once it became clear that they would not be able to bully the conference organizers into ousting the Tibetans. Nevertheless, their show of pique does no credit to the Chinese claims of freedom of religion.
So three cheers to the Jogye Order for living up to the WFB’s goals of showing solidarity and brotherhood among Buddhists by defending the right of members of the WFB to participate in the organization’s activities regardless of their political affiliation. Three jeers to the Chinese delegation — made up of monks and “Buddhist officials” — for not being willing to acknowledge the brotherhood of their coreligionists. They obviously have yet to learn what freedom of religion truly means.
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Just before dawn on Jan. 17, a Chinese military drone crossed for the first time into Taiwanese airspace above a disputed coral reef in the South China Sea. The reconnaissance aircraft lingered over Pratas Island (Xisha Island, 西沙群島) for a few minutes, while Taipei issued warnings to leave over international radio frequencies. China said the flight was a “normal” training mission. Taiwan called it “provocative and irresponsible.” On the other side of the world, officials in Europe saw the maneuver as part of a long-term Chinese plan to salami-slice away Taiwanese control over its territory and, eventually, force its unification with China. EU officials
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
RSS