Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Wang Hung-wei (王鴻薇) on May 3 attended a regular political commentary program on cross-strait affairs hosted and aired by China’s state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV). Speaking to other guests from an indoor soundstage in Taipei, Wang referred to President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) as “the Taiwan leader” and said that Taiwan is merely a pawn for the US government.
The comments drew much public attention in Taiwan, but they were not a mere “slip of the tongue,” as there are many hidden issues in Taiwan, including loopholes and ambiguity in laws and regulations, the self-degradation of public officials, and the effortlessness with which Chinese state media run by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can deploy its local lackeys in Taiwan.
Wang enjoys freedom of expression in Taiwan, so her self-degrading remark is not a crime. However, she was speaking on a program hosted by a state broadcaster run by a country that treats Taiwan as an enemy.
In this light, the matter involves great legal ambiguity.
First, the media firm claims to have obtained a license in Taiwan, so there is no suspicion that it has contravened the law by setting up a soundstage in Taiwan.
Article 33-1 of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) stipulates: “Unless permitted by each competent authorities concerned, no individual, juristic person, organization, or other institution of the Taiwan Area may engage in any of the following activities,” one of which is “cooperative activity involving political nature with any individual, juristic person, organization, or other institution of the Mainland Area.”
Even if Wang’s remarks represent her personal belief, using the Chinese rather than the Taiwanese transliteration for “Trump” and referring to Tsai as the “Taiwan leader,” which are more palatable to China, raise the question of whether there is not also some “cooperative activity of a political nature.”
It also begs the questions of whether Wang was paid to attend and, if she was, who paid her. Any comment in this highly political program must have complied with the CCP’s opinion. Was there really no cooperation going on?
Most of the show’s guests are common people or academics — public officials rarely participate, but it has now featured a Taiwanese public official who is also the KMT’s Cultural and Communications Committee deputy director-general. What will the future look like if public officials are denigrated by China even before they leave Taiwan?
The National Communications Commission and the Mainland Affairs Council, which are responsible for approving the operations of Chinese media firms in Taiwan, should pay more attention to whether this kind of highly political program functioning as a tool for China’s “united front” strategy should be allowed to set up or use a soundstage in Taipei, and what its purposes are.
Should fellow travelers in Taiwan be allowed to facilitate the activities of such media outlets? If government agencies continue to turn a blind eye to such programs and their supporters, they would never be able to regulate what Taiwanese in China do and say.
This incident is by no means unique, and it deserves the government’s deliberation and examination. Cross-strait exchanges are not a bad thing, but when they go too far, they cannot be brushed over by simply referring to them as “cross-strait exchanges.”
Michael Lin is a postgraduate student at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of National Development.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new