It is unfortunate that Taiwan has a neighbor across the Taiwan Strait that wants to annex it, but, even more frustrating, Taiwanese also have to put up with people who echo China’s rhetoric and intended to intimidate Taiwanese into obedience.
On Friday, while attending a book launch by former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Culture and Communications Committee director-general Lee Chien-jung’s (李建榮), former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) said that the number of young Taiwanese who identify with Taiwanese independence ideals would “reduce sharply to 20 percent from the perceived 70 or 80 percent” if the US factor were removed and if China were to invade.
Saying that Taiwan’s safety is a prerequisite to independence, Su said “this kind of Taiwanese independence is not a courageous independence, but one built on a foundation of false security.”
At a time when China is stepping up efforts to intimidate Taiwan, such as the passage of the Chinese aircraft carrier the Liaoning through the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday last week and the People’s Liberation Army Air Force training missions that circled Taiwan’s airspace over the past few months, it is incomprehensible that a former Taiwanese official would promote China’s power and prestige, distorting and neglecting mainstream public opinion.
However, Su’s claim to fame is making up the term “1992 consensus,” so it many may not be that surprising.
As numerous polls in recent years have indicated, the latest of which was released last month by the Taiwan Thinktank, there is a growing number of people who refer to themselves as “Taiwanese,” with the increase especially notable among younger people.
Su has incorrectly interpreted that such people’s identity would crumble if the US factor were removed and China invaded.
As New Power Party Legislator Hsu Yung-ming (徐永明) said, Su’s argument stems from “old world thinking” that regards Taiwanese independence as hinging on US ability and support, not to mention that Taiwanese are not as easily scared as Su implies.
Su and Beijing should be reminded of the 1996 incident when China fired missiles off the coast of Taiwan in an obvious attempt to scare Taiwanese into not voting for Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), a presidential candidate Beijing did not favor. The election result made Taiwanese proud: Not only did Lee win, but he did so in a landslide and became Taiwan’s first democratically elected president. Taiwanese showed their wisdom and courage by rejecting Chinese bullying with their votes.
KMT Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), KMT Vice Chairman Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) and former vice president Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) all recently announced they would run for the position of KMT chairperson. All have said they are disciples of former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), but they do not abide by Chiang’s “three noes” policy — no contact, no negotiation and no compromise — when it comes to dealing with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Su’s latest remarks were tantamount to being a mouthpiece for China. If he dared to make such a statement during the Martial Law era under Chiang’s rule, he would have been condemned for spreading CCP propaganda.
It is no secret that Beijing wishes to aggravate Taiwanese anxiety and it is a shame that there are people in Taiwan who — intentionally or unintentionally — play China’s game.
If anything, the real peril facing Taiwan is not China’s threats or its saber-rattling, but Taiwanese’s own lack of self-confidence.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
RSS