The “one country, two systems” framework is an emotive subject. There is no question of it being implemented in Taiwan, as the nation, unlike Hong Kong, is not a part of China. Hong Kongers — as they must abide by the framework — would prefer it if Beijing kept the “two systems” part intact.
A message posted on WeChat and Sina Weibo by the Hong Kong agent of Yifang Taiwan Fruit Tea on Monday set the Internet alight, with users from Taiwan and Hong Kong mocking and condemning the Taiwanese company. The reaction was in some ways more informative and consequential than the facts.
The contentious parts of the message were the opening sentence, which said: “We are resolved to maintaining ‘one country, two systems,’ and are opposed to the violent strike,” and a sentence from the middle, which said: “Yifang strongly disapproves of any action intended to break up the country.”
Following calls for Yifang to distance itself from its agent, its parent company issued a three-point statement, which was mostly a sanitized, corporate-speak platitude about the firm’s commitment to making the best tea possible, obeying the law of the land and staying away from politics.
The company was perhaps blind to the controversy, but admittedly it was caught between a rock and a hard place.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) briefly stepped into the fray, saying that tea and politics were best kept separate; former New Taipei City mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) said on Facebook that people should “drink tea as you did before and continue to oppose [Hong Kong’s proposed] extradition law”; while Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) asked what the controversy had to do with Taiwan.
Politicians did the right thing by avoiding demonizing the company or criticizing the agent’s message, and Ko’s appeal to the illogical basis of the controversy is correct, although it misses the point.
First, the agent expressed support for “one country, two systems.” This is essentially what the protests and strikes are about: A clear distinction between the two systems used to govern China and Hong Kong.
Second, the agent said it was opposed to violent strikes. Nothing contentious there.
Third, the agent talked about “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong, where it exists, and did not mention its implementation in Taiwan.
Finally, although the reference to any action that contributes to breaking up China could be interpreted as including Taiwanese independence — in terms of Beijing’s false claim that Taiwan belongs to China — it is reasonable to see this firmly within the context of China and Hong Kong.
The point is not the logical basis of the statement, but what it symbolizes.
Taiwan stands in solidarity with Hong Kong in its predicament. Lawyer Lu Chiu-yuan (呂秋遠) published an article urging Yifang founder Ko Tzu-kai (柯梓凱) to remember his roots and reminding him that his fortune was built upon the very people protesting and striking in Hong Kong.
Online commentators mocked the agent’s message with phrases such as “one fruit, two juices” (yi guo liang zhi, 一果兩汁) — which is a homophone of the Chinese words for “one country, two systems” (一國兩制) — and YouTuber Chillseph posted a tutorial using the “reddest of red tea” (black tea is called “red tea” in Chinese), blending made-up tea varieties sounding like the Chinese words for “heavy-handed cops” and “corrupt police.” In the end, he tips the blend down the toilet.
If Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is alarmed by how his changes are being rejected by Hong Kongers, he should rethink touting a similar model as some kind of inducement for Taiwanese to accept his plans for unification.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers