Former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) was on Wednesday able to laugh it off when his account on Chinese microblogging Web site Sina Weibo was shut down less than 24 hours after he made it public.
The suspension did not come as a surprise, as people know how tightly the Chinese government runs its Internet controls and clamps down on free speech, but this was special because it happened to Hsieh.
Hsieh’s China policy is widely considered the most moderate among senior Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) politicians and he became the first DPP heavyweight to visit China last year.
Beijing, which appeared to be ready for closer engagement with the independence-minded DPP, extended its goodwill by sending several high-ranking officials to meet Hsieh, who, conversely, was criticized by many of his fellow party members for “kowtowing to China” during the trip.
That explains why the case is so symbolic to Taiwanese, some of whom still expect Beijing to change its stance on reconciliation across the Taiwan Strait, and it was, perhaps, a stupid move by the Chinese government, which says it wants to “win the hearts of Taiwanese compatriots.”
In his Sina Weibo messages, Hsieh had been treading carefully around sensitive topics that might trigger Beijing’s censorship. He wrote about freedom of speech, but did not mention Taiwanese independence, Tibetan affairs or Falun Gong, topics likely to rile Beijing.
However, that was not enough to spare his account, which had more than 60,000 followers within hours of his public announcement of its existence.
No one understands what Beijing’s Internet controls are all about better than the Chinese themselves, with many saying they had been waiting for Hsieh’s account to be axed.
The suspension of Hsieh’s account made it even more difficult for Taiwanese to trust the Chinese government.
“If the government could not even tolerate Hsieh’s comments, I don’t know how it could convince Taiwanese [about unification],” a Sina Weibo user wrote.
Taiwanese seem to be trapped between conflicting thoughts about the emerging China. On one hand, they fantasize about the sheer size and potential of the Chinese market, with more young Taiwanese saying they are willing to move to China for better career opportunities and a higher salary, while on the other they know very well what is happening across the Taiwan Strait with regards to the lack of free speech and political oppression.
Beijing seems to believe that economic and political development can be separated. Particularly, freedom of speech is considered an “internal affair” in which other nations should not interfere.
However, the stakes are much higher for Taiwanese than nationals of other countries, who, to some degree, can separate doing business and the lack of respect of basic human rights in China.
For the million Taiwanese currently working and living in China, their freedom of speech and personal safety face the same threats as those of Chinese.
The people of Taiwan are increasingly concerned about Chinese influence in the media and the self-censorship of government officials, who seem to be avoiding topics that could offend Beijing.
The Hsieh incident is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of Taiwanese concerns about what their future would be like if unification occurred or Beijing’s influence on Taipei became too strong to ignore.
It also serves as a reminder for Taiwanese about the significance of making basic human rights and values the basis of cross-strait engagements. After all, Hsieh could apply for a new Sina Weibo account, but the loss of freedom of speech is not as easy to rectify.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS