Last month, popular Taiwanese band Mayday (五月天) held concerts in China, soon followed by allegations that the band lip-synched during their performances. At first, only self-published media raised the issue, but later the Shanghai Municipal Administration of Culture and Tourism investigated it. Then, Chinese state-affiliated media including Xinhua news agency, the People’s Daily and Procuratorial Daily brought it to public attention. Then, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office at a news conference implied that the band should not have set a bad example.
The reason for such an unprecedented investigation by Chinese officials has just become clear. In a Reuters report, two Taiwanese security officials said that the campaign was led by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Publicity Department to “sway the youth vote” ahead of the presidential and legislative elections on Jan. 13.
Taiwanese intelligence officials said that the Chinese National Radio and Television Administration pressured Mayday to state that Taiwan is a part of China.
The Mayday incident became public less than 20 days before the elections, a reminder of what happened in 2016 to the Taiwanese member of the South Korean pop band Twice, Chou Tzu-yu (周子瑜). In 2016, Chou briefly displayed a Republic of China (ROC) flag on a TV show. Following that, she was banned by a number of programs and her endorsement deals were canceled. Under great pressure, Chou was compelled to recognize the “one China” policy and the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Chou was then framed as a singer who supports Taiwanese independence, and now Mayday has been forced to make a political statement. It is obvious that China is attempting to interfere with the elections. When Mayday did not comply and declare a “one China” stance, the band was accused of lip-synching.
The allegations are unfounded. The CCP treats singers and artists like those in feudal times, while oppressing and manipulating artists who believe in creative freedom.
In addition to Mayday and Chou, Taiwanese pop singers such as Jolin Tsai (蔡依林), Hebe Tian (田馥甄), Lala Hsu (徐佳瑩) and Deserts Chang (張懸) have been labeled “pro-Taiwanese independence” for absurd reasons, and they have been severely criticized by young, jingoistic “little pink” Chinese nationalists on the Internet. Beijing regards anything that goes against Chinese propaganda about its claimed sovereignty as pro-Taiwanese independence. Any singer or artist unwilling to cooperate are subject to attacks on the Internet, and their performance contracts and endorsement deals might be terminated.
The Mayday incident shows how easily people could be suppressed by China’s state apparatus. Nowadays, Beijing does not even have to come up with any excuse to interfere with the elections. It has been trying to push Taiwan into the “one China” trap.
It is not Mayday that has lip-synched. The Chinese government has been lip-synching the songs of “both sides of the Strait are one family” and “taking good care of the Taiwanese” for years. Beijing wants to force singers and artists from Taiwan to perform in accordance with its propaganda, but it will never succeed. Taiwanese singers will never include “1992 consensus” or “one China across the Strait” in their lyrics.
With the ballots in their hands, Taiwanese are to prove again to China that they will never surrender and be subjugated. It is impossible for Taiwanese to abandon democracy and freedom while embracing autocratic China. As Mayday’s lyrics go: “You are what you believe, your insistence makes you what you are.”
Jethro Wang works as a research assistant for a think tank.
Translated by Emma Liu
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS