“One country, two systems” is on everyone’s lips these days, but there is another, even more frightening, possibility that no one has pointed to: “Two countries, one system.” Why is that more frightening? Because the first one has not happened yet, but the second one is in progress — it is an immediate danger, so it is more frightening.
What is “two countries, one system”? One country is Taiwan, the other is China — this is obvious. In the two countries, there are two governments, the Republic of China (ROC) government and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government.
There should be two systems, one in each country. Because the two are at opposite ends of the political spectrum — one is a democracy, the other a despotic regime — they have adopted completely different systems.
If the system of one of the countries seeps in to the other, and is in clear conflict with the other country’s interests — perhaps some of them, perhaps all — but many of that country’s citizens do not feel that there is any conflict, complying with that system and ignoring the exhortations of their own government, surely that amounts to “two countries, one system.”
If a democracy was the dominant country, that would create a beacon effect.
As US Vice President Mike Pence put it at the Hudson Institute last year: “Taiwan’s embrace of democracy shows a better path for all the Chinese people.”
Another expression of that effect is Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) policy that China should be unified under the three principles of the people.
This is probably something that all Taiwanese, regardless of party affiliation, would look on as natural and not in the least bit frightening.
However, if the dominant country was an authoritarian regime like the PRC, that would mean that the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) plans for Taiwan were effective and the ROC government would be helpless and unable to influence developments.
Regardless of the extent of the PRC’s influence, surely most Taiwanese would disagree with such a situation, and perhaps even slam the table in anger and demand that those guilty be held responsible.
An increasing number of people are frustrated by recent incidents that clearly fall under the second scenario.
One of them is that the National Police Administration has found many online political statements that threaten the physical safety of others and provoke hate and confrontation.
Clearly breaking the law, these statements were shown to have originated from China’s Internet army. So what will Taiwanese do?
On May 10, Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference National Committee Chairman Wang Yang (汪洋) lectured 85 Taiwanese media workers, and on May 19, many Taiwanese media outlets ignored all warnings and traveled to Guangzhou to listen to Huang Kunming (黃坤明), head of the CCP’s propaganda department, when he promoted Beijing’s Greater Bay Area project.
Whether the absurd statement that it is the media’s responsibility to promote cross-strait unification or the demand that Taiwanese media strive to bring about “one country, two systems,” the intentional acts that got Taiwanese media outlets to attend the events were offensive to the Taiwanese public. However, apart from its rule-by-slogan approach, what does the government do?
Having to make this kind of criticism is frustrating, but looking back, politicians have made a huge number of statements in relation to these events.
In the end, what has changed? Empty words do not have much effect, so the nation is facing a crisis of government.
As Chinese forces are moving in fast and unhindered, the introduction of the much-feared “two countries, one system” is taking place before people’s eyes.
It is far from sufficient for the government to merely describe what is going on and explain the causes. It must come up with a concrete solution or lose all power.
Why do Taiwanese media outlets ignore public complaints and fall over each other to attend events that are more about China’s “united front” tactics than news reporting?
One possible explanation is that the overall benefits offered to these outlets and their owners by China far outweigh any profit they can make in the Taiwanese market, and that is why they voluntarily introduce China’s designs on Taiwan.
A capable government would not lack the necessary policy tools to effectively address this problem, so why is the government talking instead of taking action?
If the government does nothing to address the deteriorating “two countries, one system” situation, why bother opposing “one country, two systems”? That is a serious thing to say, but does that mean that it is wrong?
Tzou Jiing-wen is editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Perry Svensson
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS