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?
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS