A quote often misattributed to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels holds that “a lie repeated a thousand times becomes truth.” Sadly the preposterous nature of this appears to depict conditions in Taiwan today.
Two major lies enmesh the nation: One is the so-called “1992 consensus” and the other is the meaningless name “Chinese Taipei.” Recent events suggest just how extensive these lies have become in obfuscating public discourse.
The spurious “consensus” was touted by proponents as the backbone that helped propel Kaohsiung mayor-elect Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and Taichung mayor-elect Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to electoral victories for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), who campaigned on promises of economic gains.
The truth is that the political make-believe of the “consensus” has nothing to do with economic growth nor private investment, and yet it is being pushed as a legitimate representation of reality.
Since 2000, when then-National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi (蘇起) made up the term before the nation’s first democratic transfer of power when the KMT handed the Presidential Office to the Democratic Progressive Party, Taiwanese have been led on a path of deception as the KMT promoted the “consensus” as a supposed understanding reached in 1992 that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
However, over the years, incidents and statements by Chinese officials have shown that Beijing’s understanding is different from what the KMT has been selling. Beijing’s incessant bullying of Taiwan suggests it could never tolerate the idea of “both sides having their own interpretation,” because agreeing to this would be tacit acceptance of “two Chinas.”
Even KMT Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said that “the 1992 consensus is each side having its own interpretation, but you cannot say that to China’s face.”
The other big lie is the name “Chinese Taipei,” which was a concession the KMT made in 1981 — during the party-state era — to the International Olympic Committee.
However, this ridiculous name has spilled over from the sports realm. National Central University associate professor of Earth sciences Lin Tien-shun (林殿順) on Friday pointed out the absurdity of an academic institute in Australia unilaterally changing references to Taiwan to “Chinese Taipei” — and even changing Taiwan Strait to “Chinese Taipei Strait” — in a 2003 paper he wrote.
The fictional “consensus” was concocted to serve a political purpose, while the name issue was mounted out of fear, as shown by reactions to the name-change referendum on Nov. 24, which opponents said would jeopardize athletes’ eligibility for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games. As a result, the referendum — which asked whether the national team should participate at international sporting events as “Taiwan” instead of “Chinese Taipei” — was defeated 55 percent to 45 percent.
These deceptions might be conjured by different means and under different circumstances, but they manipulated beliefs and shifted dispositions.
So politicians clamor to uphold a nonexistent “consensus,” while Taiwanese appear to be satisfied cheering for teams called “Chinese Taipei” without grasping how demeaning and insulting the name is to the nation’s standing and dignity.
“Falsehood flies and truth comes limping after it,” author Jonathan Swift wrote in his essay The Art of Political Lying in 1710.
When will the truth ever catch up and break Taiwanese free of the wall of lies that has encircled them for so long?
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 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
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
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS