President William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday proposed talks with Beijing to ease restrictions on Chinese visiting Taiwan, the Central News Agency wrote.
Lai said that while more than 2 million Taiwanese had visited China last year, fewer than 300,000 Chinese had visited Taiwan, and called China “the real barrier to cross-strait exchanges.”
“If China is genuinely sincere, I suggest that the Taiwan Strait Tourism Association and the Association for Tourism Exchange across the Taiwan Straits begin negotiations [to ease restrictions],” Lai said.
Naturally, there is no possibility that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would engage in talks with Lai or any other member of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Doing so would be contradictory to the CCP’s public discourse on the DPP, which it depicts as a promoter of Taiwanese independence and consequently as an enemy of the Chinese people.
To be fair, this mindset is apt in the case of Lai, who has publicly referred to himself as a “pragmatic worker for Taiwan independence.” As recently as Oct. 11 last year, China’s state-backed Global Times quoted Lai as saying as much, and called him a “pragmatic war instigator.”
Since taking office, Lai has not called for changes to Taiwan’s Constitution to enshrine its independence, but he has reiterated an earlier statement by former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) about neither side of the Strait being subordinate to each other.
Lai and Tsai have also on different occasions said that formal declarations of Taiwan’s independence are unnecessary, since Taiwan is already independent. All of this is to say that the CCP would have no interest in dialogue with the DPP, since the DPP is fully uninterested in unification with China, which is the CCP’s sole goal in talks with Taiwanese authorities. Nevertheless, Lai’s suggestion of such talks is not without purpose. Lai is demonstrating to Taiwanese voters and the international community that the DPP is open to talks with the CCP, and open to peaceful resolution of any cross-strait disagreements.
This openness also serves to invalidate any suggestions by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) that the DPP is the cause of a diplomatic impasse between Taiwan and China.
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) on Wednesday said that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of a collective ethnic Chinese group and share the same Chinese culture.”
The only difference between the two sides is in their respective political systems, Chu said.
“Only by seeking common ground while respecting differences can the two sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain peace,” he said.
Chu’s first point is irrelevant, since many countries share linguistic and cultural commonalities. Should Singapore be a part of China, as the majority of its population is Chinese speakers who follow traditions also found in China? Should the US be a part of the UK, as most Americans speak English as their first language, and they adhere to holidays and religious traditions also found in the UK?
Chu’s second point lacks context, since he does not explain how China’s political system is relevant to cross-strait relations, and his third point is moot because it arguably applies to all bilateral relations.
It makes little sense for the KMT to argue that Lai should communicate with Beijing, when it very clearly is Beijing that is not open to communication with Lai.
The CCP employs a “carrot and stick” approach when it comes to its relations with Taiwan. It uses trade barriers to try to turn the public against the DPP, and it rewards Taiwanese who follow its “one China policy” and pro-unification agenda. Therefore, tourism restrictions are likely to be lifted only if Beijing can paint the lifting as an achievement of the KMT, which it apparently considers to be pliable.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS