On Dec. 28 last year, Reuters reported that China has been pressuring Taiwanese rock band Mayday to make pro-China comments. It is alleged that Beijing wanted Mayday to declare their support for the so-called “1992 consensus,” but the band refused.
Reuters is one of the largest news agencies in the world and has a long-standing reputation for credibility. Reuters also attempted to fact-check the allegations, but Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials did not respond to requests for comment.
Even then, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) said that the Reuters report was “fake news from start to finish.”
Considering the presidential and legislative elections are in less than two weeks, some have said that the pan-blue camp, spearheaded by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), has cooperated with the TAO to spread rumors about the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
As of yet, Mayday has not made a public statement, without which no one can be sure of the truth.
Yet, evidence shows that the band has been coerced by the CCP.
After Mayday was accused of lip-synching, Chinese officials began investigating the incident, but after almost a month, the “investigation” is ongoing. Clearly, without Mayday’s “collaboration,” the CCP is unlikely to end its probe.
Moreover, it is well known that the CCP has been intervening in Taiwan’s elections through all sorts of channels. Beijing’s threats have become even more wanton of late. Some Chinese officials believe that their threats will work effectively. In their opinion, if they can pressure Mayday into making pro-China comments, they could influence Taiwan’s younger voters.
However, they are very much mistaken.
In the TAO’s public announcement, the Reuters report is fake news and the DPP government deliberately allowed the rumor mill to run wild, but it did not respond to Reuters immediately after the report. Instead, it rejected Reuters’ report only after witnessing a collective protest by Taiwan’s political parties.
The timing of the TAO’s response can be easily explained: After witnessing the protest, it realized that Beijing should not have pressured Mayday. In other words, Chinese officials realized that their scheme would only backfire on China; worse, it would allow the pan-green camp to make significant gains in the election.
Beijing’s political manipulation is so conspicuous that Taiwan and the international community have every reason to believe the Reuters report.
It is also more than obvious that the pan-blue camp went along with what the TAO said. The blue camp did not verify the rumors and news, nor did they criticize the ways in which Taiwanese were coerced by the CCP, which wanted them to swear their allegiance to China.
Pan-blue politicians have avoided challenging China’s interference in Taiwan’s presidential and legislative elections. Beijing is already known for its interventions in other countries, as well as spreading fake news. Every democratic country knows that China’s purpose is to harass democracies and disturb their domestic affairs.
For decades, Taiwan has been targeted the most, but KMT members and pan-blue politicians in general have refrained from talking about China’s interventions — if not ignored the matter entirely. As can be seen throughout their election campaigns, the KMT and the pan-blue camp are only capable of spreading hatred against the ruling party. In this sense, the election is their means to put their ideology into practice by disparaging the DPP.
Liu Shih-ming is an adjunct associate professor in the Graduate School of Taiwanese Culture at the National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Emma Liu
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS