In recent years, an increasing number of Chinese academics and journalists have become proud to call themselves “public intellectuals.” In their mind, the title of “public intellectual” carries two meanings: First, these people believe they represent the public interest and thus they have a duty to criticize government policies.Second, they think they are more intelligent and knowledgeable than lay people, so they are responsible for enlightening the public and teaching them how to participate in public affairs.
Generally, these Chinese public intellectuals, who support democracy, have promoted social liberalization in China. However, their narrow--mindedness and ignorance have been exposed in recent events.
Since 2009, more than 30 Tibetans have self-immolated in protest against China’s political, cultural and religious suppression in Tibet. Facing such a severe humanitarian crisis, while the international community strongly condemns the Chinese government’s Tibet policy, most Chinese public intellectuals have remained silent.
Even though the public intellectuals may fear the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it is still hard to understand why these public intellectuals and a large number of their fans are reluctant to speak out even in cyberspace. It seems that Chinese, about whom these public intellectuals are concerned and would like to speak for, do not include -Tibetans. Or perhaps, the public intellectuals insist they should criticize the Chinese government to protect the interests of all Chinese, but the precondition for making such criticism is that Tibetans, or any other non-Han, must accept that “XXX is an inseparable part of China’s territory since antiquity.”
In other words, for who refuse to accept this, their right to life and their other basic human rights do not belong to the “public interest” that the public intellectuals would like to protect.
As an Internet article said: “Chinese public intellectuals are collectively playing dumb about the Tibetan self-immolation incidents. Their silence is a form of conspiracy. They are as shameless as the murderers.”
Chinese public intellectuals are also ignorant of Taiwanese issues. Normally, the public intellectuals praise Taiwan’s democratic experience and hope Taiwan can help China’s democratization. However, they are not able to propose any approach, so they have to place their hope in the CCP’s “one country, two systems” formula. Therefore, the public intellectuals are actually agents of the CCP’s propaganda for Taiwan.
In the wake of former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Wu Poh-hsiung’s (吳伯雄) “one country, two areas” proposal to Beijing, the public intellectuals’ respect for the KMT, as well as their hope for a so-called “third CCP-KMT cooperation” and “one country, two systems” have climaxed.
One famous public intellectual wrote on the Internet: “China includes the mainland and Taiwan, which is the part that has a better system, while the other should learn from it.”
Another public intellectual said: “When the elected Taiwanese government claims the mainland as an inseparable part of the nation, the legitimacy of the non-elected people’s government is challenged. The KMT government should not restrict the presidential election to only the Taiwan area. Instead, it should organize elections in both Taiwan and on the mainland. Therefore the jurisdictional territory of Taiwan would expand to the whole of China. The future China will include both the mainland and Taiwan.”
When these public intellectuals take for granted that Taiwan must play a positive factor in China’s democratization and that Taiwan must be included in a democratized China, they contemptuously ignore Taiwan’s national interests and Taiwanese national identity. Chinese public intellectuals should be reminded of the following facts:
First, Taiwan is an independent country and it owes no legal duty to help China improve its democracy.
Second, the “one country, two systems” formula would not result in a democratic system in China. The reality in Hong Kong is that the CCP has never allowed Hong Kong to govern itself without interference and that the territory is being “mainlandized.” One prominent example is Leung Chun-ying (梁振英), who was Beijing’s preferred candidate for chief executive despite his low popularity and won election because of the CCP’s manipulation.
“One country, two systems” is just a cheap trick, and its ultimate purpose is to “reunify China,” which the CCP claims as its one core interest.
However, as Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo (戴秉國) once stated: “China’s No. 1 core interest is to maintain its fundamental system.”
Obviously, a democratic system in a “reunified China,” something the Chinese public intellectuals daydream about, goes against the CCP’s No. 1 core interest and will never be allowed.
Even worse, the CCP’s ambition, power and its practical actions to pursue these core interests pose a huge threat to Taiwan’s democracy. The KMT’s “one country, two areas” proposal is as stupid as the illusions of Chinese public intellectuals.
Zaijun Yuan is a political researcher based in Hong Kong. Mattel Hsu is a doctoral candidate in politics at Monash University in Australia.
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
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
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS