On Monday last week, China Film Co, the distributor of the Taiwanese film Missing Johnny (強尼‧凱克), abruptly announced that the film has been indefinitely suspended. That followed claims on Chinese social media that its male lead, Lawrence Ko (柯宇綸), supports Taiwanese independence.
Four days later, the Beijing branch of HIM International Music, the record label of Taiwanese singer Yoga Lin (林宥嘉), issued a statement denying claims that Lin supports Taiwanese independence.
The company “guarantees and promises that Lin is not a pro-Taiwan independence member; he has never in private or in public supported Taiwanese independence nor made any remarks relating to or in support of Taiwanese independence,” the statement said.
While Beijing might be patting itself on the back for “scoring” another point and “dampening” the morale of supporters of Taiwanese independence, the latest incidents serve only to widen the gap between democratic Taiwan and communist China.
Those incidents, which occurred after China’s Feb. 28 announcement of 31 measures and economic benefits for Taiwanese wishing to work and live in China, reveal not only Beijing’s hypocrisy, but also its autocratic nature.
As befits a communist country that persecutes religious dissenters and curtails civil and political freedoms, Beijing has made it clear to the Taiwanese public that its claims of allowing Taiwanese to enjoy “national treatment” in China means nothing more than “facing discrimination and restrictions on their freedoms and rights to political expression.”
China’s actions bring to mind similar incidents, such as Chou Tzu-yu (周子瑜), the Taiwanese member of South Korean girl group TWICE, being forced to apologize in public for holding a Republic of China (ROC) flag on a South Korean television show, and Taiwanese actor/director Leon Dai (戴立忍) being replaced in the Chinese film No Other Love (沒有別的愛) after failing to clarify his political stance. One can only expect similar incidents to increase in the future.
China obviously is the main intimidator in all these cases, bullying Taiwanese entertainers and forcing them to make public their political stance. However, many cannot help but wonder: Where is the Taiwanese government in all this?
As Missing Johnny director Lin Cheng-sheng (林正盛) said in his response to the Chinese ban: “It is the government that should express its opinion.”
Indeed, the government needs to be more active and approach the matter pragmatically.
Minister of Culture Cheng Li-chiun (鄭麗君) said that Taiwan’s niche in its bid to venture into international public broadcasting is its democratic values and freedom.
“The best way to prevent risks is to bolster one’s strengths and let people realize that opportunities await them here in Taiwan,” Cheng said.
However, talk is cheap. The public is sick and tired of the Democratic Progressive Party government making empty promises or offering meek protests and rhetoric, all the while casting the blame on China.
Cheng and the DPP administration as a whole need to know that the vision of a thriving Taiwanese entertainment industry lies not in flowery and empty speeches; what the public wants to see is concrete actions to develop the industry and cultural sector, and extend and broaden the reach of Taiwan-produced creative content beyond China.
If the government remains passive and leaves the nation’s artists and cultural workers to take the hit from Beijing, the Taiwanese values that the minister of culture spoke of would never be showcased, but remain in China’s shadow.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US