Since the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, finished in August, the disputes which emerged during the event have continued to fester. Endless controversies have dominated local media’s coverage of the Games — even overshadowing weightlifter Hsu Shu-ching’s (許淑淨) gold medal — as numerous questions remain.
Why did tennis pro Hsieh Su-wei (謝淑薇) quit the Olympic team? Why is her father still taking every opportunity to denounce the Chinese Taipei Tennis Association? What did badminton player Tai Tzu-ying (戴資穎) do to deserve a fine from the Chinese Taipei Badminton Association?
On the other hand, the “Chinese Taipei” flag, which contains the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) emblem, and the “Chinese Taipei” title, which is a misrepresentation of Taiwan, have also come under scrutiny this year.
However, people tend to forget that the nation is forced to compete under that name because late president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) followed his father’s view that “gentlemen do not stand together with bandits” and refused to participate in the 1976 Montreal Olympics under the name Formosa when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Canadian government proposed that title instead of the Republic of China (ROC).
Many people have expressed their opinions in response to these controversies. Notably, many have urged the government to take a more active role in managing sports and take measures to control single-sport organizations in order to prevent corruption and other irregularities.
Critics have also called on the government to establish clearer sports policies, citing the South Korean and Chinese systems as possible models. This suggestion is particularly popular among those who work in sports.
Meanwhile, media reports describing former national team athletes who have fallen into poverty have further intensified public outcry over the government’s lack of support for sports.
While it is true that the government must take on greater responsibility for the development of sports in Taiwan, it is important to first clarify what that responsibility should be. If that role is not clearly defined, it could be disastrous. What constitutes an appropriate role and firm implementation is something that the government must first make clear: This is not only about the state, it is also about what kind of nation everyone wants.
The German federal government stated in a report on that nation’s sports that it agrees that sports should be free from government intervention and control in order to maintain their autonomy and that the government should continuously provide the necessary framework and other conditions to allow sports to develop independently.
The report also stated that the German government should provide support for top-level sports and sports at the federal level, as clearly stipulated in the German constitution. The goal is to ensure that its top athletes are given equal opportunities to succeed in international sporting events.
Sports do not belong to the state and neither does a national team. Sports belong to the public. This does not mean that governments should not have sports policies. On the contrary, it is important that governments take an active role in sports, but they must take the correct measures at the right pace. That is key for any government’s sports policy to succeed.
Lin Chia-ho is an associate professor at National Chengchi University’s College of Law and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with