Many people are quite skeptical about just exactly what kind of impact has resulted from China's white paper "The One China Principle and the Taiwan Problem." The results of a recent poll should give us some helpful insights.
In a March 5 nationwide poll conducted by Rex International PR Consultants (
Although it is hard to estimate how close this poll result will come to the actual election result, a cross-tabulation analysis of the responses to some questions yielded three interesting discoveries. First, China's white paper has apparently triggered popular resentment. Most of the interviewees resented the white paper and these people were spread evenly across supporters of the three top candidates. 67.7 percent of the interviewees indicated that they found the Chinese white paper either "not quite acceptable," or "not acceptable in the slightest." Another 20.7 percent said either that "they hold no feeling" or "no comment."
Among the supporters for all three front-runners, the percentage of those who oppose the white paper runs even higher. The lowest figure was found among Soong supporters, but 70 percent of the group nevertheless found the white paper unacceptable. The same result occurred when the results were analyzed by supporters of the three major political parties and those without any party affiliations. The figures tell us that the resentment triggered by the Chinese white paper was spread evenly across party lines and camps.
Second, the popular will has not swung to an extreme on the issue of future cross-strait relationship. Many (48.6 percent) supported Lien Chan's (連戰) proposal that "if China reciprocates with good will, then the cross-strait relation may enter the `medium term' as described in the Guidelines of National Unification (國統綱領)." A smaller number (24 percent) were inclined to oppose this policy. We know that, under the Guidelines of National Unification, reaching the `medium term' means the beginning of political negotiations by the two sides. Again, across party and candidate support groups, more people support the proposal than those oppose it. For example, among DPP supporters, 45.7 percent supported the proposal, while 37.8 percent opposed it.
This tells us, irrespective of their political stance, Taiwanese seemed to look forward to seeing an easing in cross-strait relations after the election. Moreover, as long as China reciprocates with good will, the people of Taiwan seemed to have reached a consensus about engaging in political negotiations with China. The popular will in Taiwan remained pragmatic after the issuance of the Chinese white paper. This tells us that the popular will is becoming more sophisticated and less ideological.
Thirdly, China's white paper not only failed to scare away those interviewees who support Chen Shui-bian (
On the other hand, 43.9 percent answered "No, because I did not support him in the first place," and 0.9 percent indicated that "I did not support him in the first place, but now I have decided to support him." All together, 33.5 percent of the interviewees support Chen when we add the first group with the fourth group. Interestingly enough, the figure is greater than the percentage of people who initially said would vote for Chen, 24.20 percent, by a margin of 9.3 percent. Since 0.3 percent of the interviewees had initially indicated that they would vote for Chen, but subsequently changed their mind, we conclude that China's white paper has the potential to help Chen win over an additional 9 percent of supporters.
This poll demonstrated that China's conduct had in fact shot herself in the foot. If the People's Liberation Army were to come out even less ambiguously, it would only further benefit Chen. To all the candidates and to the international community, the message is clear. The popular will in Taiwan is not extreme: pursuit of a stable and peaceful cross-strait relationship is the mainstream view. At the same time, people will definitely not give in to Chinese coercion.
Hsu Szu-chien is an assistant research fellow at the Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University.
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big