Portugal's handover of Macau to China tonight is supposed to be of great significance to Taiwan. Beijing has recently been ratcheting up its rhetoric about the final step to "reunification of the motherland." There is talk of how Macau has to be a model for the success of "one country, two systems" or else Taiwan will be "lost." Yet what is baffling is not what Beijing's strategy is, but why anyone would consider it even coherent, let alone potentially winning.
Beijing's aim has been, of course, to project first Hong Kong, then Macau, then Taiwan as a natural sequence in the recovery of "Chinese territory." The idea is that international opinion might be less resistant to Taiwan's being pressured if it can see reunification as part of an "inevitable" trend utilizing a method of "one country, two systems" that has already worked successfully elsewhere.
Forget for a moment the fact that "one country, two systems" has not worked well in Hong Kong, whatever the Beijing-appointed Tung Chee-hwa might say. Also forget the fact that Portugal has shown how deeply it is committed to making sure Beijing keeps to its promises over Macau by declaring the formula a success even before it has even been instituted.
Instead look at the dissimilarities between the Hong Kong and Macau handovers themselves, and the difference between both of them and the circumstances affecting Taiwan.
In Hong Kong's case, the legalistic British felt bound by the 99-year lease on the New Territories, without which they deemed the enclave ceded to them in perpetuity -- Kowloon and Hong Kong island itself -- not to be viable. The Portuguese, on the other hand, have been trying to give back Macau since the fall of the Salazar dictatorship in 1974. Tonight's events could have happened any time in the past 20 years if Beijing had wanted it.
Ultimately, the picture that appears is of two external powers, for vastly different reasons, giving away territory they controlled without asking the people affected whether that is what they wanted. Had they done so, it is possible that the answers from reluctant Hong Kong and relaxed Macau might have been very different.
But Taiwan's case is altogether different. Not only is it vastly bigger than either Hong Kong -- the size of greater Taipei -- or Macau -- the size of Chiayi. More importantly, Taiwan is not the adjunct of an exhausted colonial power. It cannot be given away by a third party; it can only in some way be given up by the Taiwanese themselves. This raises two questions: how and why.
How, because in Taiwan's case there would be a problem about whom China could negotiate with. China could deal with Portugal and Britain as equals in deciding what to do with their colonies. But since Beijing refuses to talk to Taiwan as an equal, how might such negotiations be conducted? The negotiation mechanism for Hong Kong and Macau seems to have no application in Taiwan's case whatsoever.
But the stronger question is why. Why would the Taiwanese want to subsume their own interests within those of China as a whole? Put another way, what is in reunification for the Taiwanese. So far, all China has offered is either mystical nonsense about a "motherland" at least as foreign to most Taiwanese as, say, Japan, or the less than reassuring promise that it will stop threatening Taiwan militarily. Talk of the cases of Hong Kong and Macau as providing a blueprint for Taiwan's reunification seems to neglect a crucial point. The two colonies were like an arranged marriage: those most deeply concerned had no choice in the matter. Taiwan, however, is not the same. Lacking a colonial parent to give it away, it has to be wooed, something China still cannot understand.
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
Before the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can blockade, invade, and destroy the democracy on Taiwan, the CCP seeks to make the world an accomplice to Taiwan’s subjugation by harassing any government that confers any degree of marginal recognition, or defies the CCP’s “One China Principle” diktat that there is no free nation of Taiwan. For United States President Donald Trump’s upcoming May 14, 2026 visit to China, the CCP’s top wish has nothing to do with Trump’s ongoing dismantling of the CCP’s Axis of Evil. The CCP’s first demand is for Trump to cease US
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly widespread in workplaces, some people stand to benefit from the technology while others face lower wages and fewer job opportunities. However, from a longer-term perspective, as AI is applied more extensively to business operations, the personnel issue is not just about changes in job opportunities, but also about a structural mismatch between skills and demand. This is precisely the most pressing issue in the current labor market. Tai Wei-chun (戴偉峻), director-general of the Institute of Artificial Intelligence Innovation at the Institute for Information Industry, said in a recent interview with the Chinese-language Liberty Times