Despite its investments in China, Far Eastern Group has been blacklisted by Beijing as a “pro-Taiwanese independence enterprise.”
The Chinese government has taken measures against the company, including conducting law enforcement inspections in multiple provinces and cities, issuing hefty fines and seeking recovery of taxes.
Far Eastern Group chairman Douglas Hsu (徐旭東) has styled himself as “a senior industrialist,” but after reading what he wrote in the media, it is hard to feel anything but disappointment and regret.
Hsu has been speaking out against recent happenings in Taiwanese politics and society, lambasting the government for focusing on referendums and elections while neglecting economic policies and industrial planning. This is not based on facts, and is a distortion of the truth.
As Taiwan is a democratic country, referendums and elections are part of the system, not to mention that elections and many questions in the referendums are closely tied to economic development.
Although the global economy has suffered a severe shock since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, Taiwan seems to be one of the few nations whose economic growth has remained positive. How is this in any way “neglecting the economy”?
Hsu said that Taiwan is “against China through and through,” but he is barking up the wrong tree. Taiwan has always been the abused and oppressed party in its relationship with China. Taiwanese do not hate China, as long as it stops “flexing its muscles” and forcing Taiwanese to become “Chinese,” and gives up its “unified front” activities.
Taiwanese do not have the will or desire to be at odds with China on every issue. A peaceful and collaborative economic relationship is not impossible.
While Hsu has been saying that Taiwanese should not “let ideology take precedence,” he has also said that “he has always opposed Taiwanese independence,” supported the so-called “1992 consensus” and, “like the US and the international community,” supported the “one China” principle.
How is any part of this not ideology when this is a blatant contradiction and a slap in the face? His anti-independence stance and support of the non-existent “1992 consensus” are his personal opinions, but since when have the US and the international community followed the “one China” principle? He should be happy that the US is at least following its “one China” policy.
So far, the government has not moved against businesses investing in China. Now that Beijing has fined Hsu for misconduct, not only did he not turn to himself or show great leadership in crisis management, he is turning around to bite the hand that feeds him, the country that has nourished him and provided him with every opportunity along the way.
For someone who is kicking his benefactor in the teeth, it seems that Hsu has a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.
Hung Yu-jui is a Japanese teacher and translator.
Translated by Rita Wang
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS