Following the invitation of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), a Chinese university tour group visited Taiwan on an exchange trip. Regarding Taiwan’s win at the World Baseball Softball Confederation’s Premier12, Song Siyao (宋思瑤), a female student from Fudan University, said the tour group “would like to congratulate China, Taipei team on their win. We wish mainland China and Taiwan compatriots can be like the team Chinatrust Brothers and work together for the motherland to take baseball to a higher level.”
Belittling Taiwan by referring to it as “China, Taipei” and attributing the accomplishment of our team as belonging to the “motherland” subtly conveys China’s decisive stance on “reunification.” Upon hearing such remarks, one cannot help but feel angry.
In October, two Chinese people caused disturbances at an event related to Hong Kong in Taipei’s Ximending (西門町) area. The severity of the Chinese university tour group’s actions are far worse. It is baffling that the government has taken no action in response.
I support cross-strait exchanges and agree with Tsinghua University Chinese Communist Party committee secretary Qiu Yong’s (邱勇) words that “the youth represent hope and are the architects of the future.”
I also hope that “young people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will have more opportunities to get to know each other and build meaningful relationships.”
However, a guest should exhibit basic courtesy to their host — one cannot stand on Taiwanese soil and spread China’s “reunification” rhetoric.
If the situation were reversed, and Taiwanese were to openly advocate for Taiwanese independence while in China, what would happen to them?
Some might say that the difference between Taiwan and China lies in respect for the individual and freedom of speech. In Taiwan, everyone has the right to express their views freely. Today, if it were Taiwanese that were openly promoting “reunification” in Taiwan, presenting the view as their own, with talk of becoming one big “family,” their right to an opinion should naturally be respected.
However, when a Chinese student tour group visits Taiwan for an exchange, they should comply with Taiwan’s policies, uphold reciprocity and dignity, and follow legal norms. The remarks made by the tour group do not fall within the scope of free speech — rather, they are an encroachment of China’s “reunification” agenda. It was an attempt to use subtle language to convey China’s domineering message of “reunification” and deliberately diminish Taiwan’s identity as a nation. It is entirely inappropriate.
The Mainland Affairs Council has reiterated that, “Mainland Chinese individuals must not engage in conduct that undermines our sovereignty, downgrades Taiwan, or violates our laws and regulations. Violators will be dealt with in accordance with law,” and that “the people of Taiwan are warm and hospitable, but we do not welcome disrespectful troublemakers.”
Article 12 of the Regulations on Permission for Entrance of People of the Mainland Area Into the Taiwan Area (大陸地區人民進入臺灣地區許可辦法) stipulates that Chinese entering Taiwan for professional exchanges who contravene the principles of reciprocity and dignity would have their permits revoked or canceled, and their entry or exit permits may be voided.
The words of the tour group’s representative, Song, clearly contravene the principles of reciprocity and dignity, and constitute the improper spread of Chinese “reunification” rhetoric. According to the regulations, Song’s remarks were an illegal act. Thus, the government should take effective measures.
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to