The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been at the center of attention and criticism for the creation of 20,000 stickers with the slogan: “I am Taiwanese. I am from Taiwan” in Vietnamese and English, which it sent to Vietnam, hoping it would help anti-China protesters distinguish Taiwanese from Chinese.
The property of hundreds of Taiwanese businesses and the lives of thousands of Taiwanese were at risk after the protests broke out in southern Vietnam last week which later devolved into riots against foreign companies and factories, in particular those from Taiwan because, according to the ministry, Vietnamese had trouble differentiating Taiwanese from Chinese.
Deputy Foreign Minister Vanessa Shih (史亞平) was seen posing with the stickers and smiling.
While analysts said the emergency measure was “simply stupid” and came too late, it would be hard to fault the slogan itself.
However, it showed that the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has repeatedly exploited the name of Taiwan when it is convenient without considering the implication of the name of Taiwan.
The slogan made one wonder why it was not “I am not Chinese,” but only “I am from Taiwan,” since the protest was targeted at the Chinese.
A message circulating on social media suggested it must have been difficult and confusing for the Vietnamese to tell Taiwanese from Chinese because the flights sending the businesspeople back to Taiwan belonged to “China Airlines” and the destination was “Chinese Taipei.”
The Vietnam incident was not the first case of Ma exploiting the name of Taiwan for his own reasons.
During the presidential campaign in 2008, Ma famously told supporters on the eve of election day that he would be Taiwanese until the day he dies. Only months after his inauguration in May 2008, Ma said he was not only Taiwanese, but also Chinese.
In June 2008, the Ma administration demanded all government agencies stop referring to China as China or the People’s Republic of China (PRC), saying the official name of China on any government document should be the “Mainland” or “Mainland China” and that all foreign delegation visits would be referred as “Fan Hua (訪華)” — meaning visiting Zhonghua Minguo (中華民國) — rather than “Fan Tai (訪台),” which means visiting Taiwan.
On June 1, 2009, Ma briefly met with then-US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton at a banquet hosted by former Salvadoran president Elias Antonio Saca in the Central American country and introduced himself as “the President of Taiwan.”
Ma then took time to explain his conversation with Clinton to Taiwanese reporters the next day, saying that Taiwan was a “common term to refer to ourselves” and that by using “Taiwan,” he was referring to the Republic of China (ROC), not the Republic of Taiwan.
During Ma’s re-election campaign in 2011, his office created a slogan, which read: “I’m a Taiwanese and also a ROCer,” referring to a ROC national.
In the past year, Taiwan has been embroiled in a controversy surrounding the Ma administration’s effort to “de-Taiwanize” high-school history textbooks with curriculum guidelines spearheaded by pro-unification politicians and academics. The revised guidelines also tried to highlight that Taiwan and China both share the same Zhonghua culture (中華文化).
Ma may have good reason for using the name of Taiwan, because the Constitution, as crazy as it is, still lists China and Mongolia as the territory of the ROC.
However, it will be difficult for him to evade public scrutiny on his opportunistic, flip-flopping position on the name of this nation and his exploitation of it to advance his own agenda.
For Taiwanese, who maybe for the first time faced losing their lives when they called themselves — or were mistaken as — Chinese in the Vietnam incident, it is time to develop a practical and comprehensive idea of the difference between Taiwan and China.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS