The referendum on banning food imports from five prefectures in Japan demonstrated again that oversimplifying terms is an effective tool to sway public opinion or mislead people. The so-called “1992 consensus” has received renewed attention over the past few weeks and the public should be careful not to fall for the same trick.
After the passage last month of a referendum calling for the retention of a ban on some Japanese food imports imposed after the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster, some wondered why the public made what they believed was an irrational decision.
Of several factors, one is particularly alarming: the use of an abbreviated term that comes with a negative connotation to refer to food imports. Politicians and media outlets with a political agenda simply referred to imports from the prefectures as heshi (核食, “nuclear food”) in a clear attempt to mislead voters into thinking that they were endorsing a ban on food products contaminated with radioactive materials.
In reality, the measure is a blanket ban that prohibits any targeted product from the areas from entering Taiwan, regardless of whether it is tainted. People were already dealing with an overload of information, so Japanese food became stigmatized as “nuclear food.”
The case of the “1992 consensus” is similar. Although the “consensus” has been thrown around a lot by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), it is seldom explained in detail, making it difficult for the public to understand its real meaning.
The Mainland Affairs Council, the top government body in charge of cross-strait affairs, has published several surveys that illustrate the problem.
About 30 to 50 percent of respondents in one survey mistakenly said they believed that the “1992 consensus” means that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) are two governments belonging to two different countries, the council said.
The large number of Taiwanese who do not understand the “consensus” correctly could spell trouble for the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), because in the eyes of the public it would be unthinkable for the government to reject such a seemingly logical agreement at the expense of cross-strait stability and the economic benefits that come with it.
It is also unclear whether people who say they support the “consensus” understand that they are supporting the idea that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to “one China.”
A lack of understanding of the “1992 consensus” makes the public an easy target for political manipulation: People could easily be tricked into making ill-informed decisions that carry dire political consequences they are not aware of, such as leaving Taiwan economically vulnerable to unification.
A clear example of this is a poll published by the China-leaning Want Want China Times Media Group on the eve of the inauguration on Tuesday of Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) of the KMT — both of whom have publicly endorsed the “1992 consensus” hoping to foster closer cross-strait exchanges.
The poll said that 61.1 percent of respondents supported the development of cross-strait ties on the basis of the “1992 consensus.” It also quoted a hotel association as saying that it welcomed the “1992 consensus” if it could help bring in tourists and money.
The DPP should pay attention to this dangerous tactic employed by CCP sympathizers. It should also do a better job of ensuring that the public understands the actual meaning of controversial political ideas, such as the “1992 consensus” and “both sides of the Strait are one family,” rather than being misled by pro-unification forces.
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS