I expected my article (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) published in the Taipei Times, to create a stir and wrote it to spark a debate over how Taiwan should respond to the affront on its sovereignty. Marcel Oppliger’s well-crafted riposte (“Yeoh is welcome back any time,” March 29, page 8) articulates several good arguments against my position — that the actress should be banned for coming to Taiwan to engage in pro-China propaganda undermining Taiwanese sovereignty — but ultimately fails to build a convincing argument for why Taiwan should tolerate such behavior without severe repercussions.
Oppliger wrote that media reports indicate Yeoh referred to Taiwan as a country in remarks at the Tiffany & Co party at Taipei 101 prior to her loathsome social media post. However, that only shows that Yeoh acted quite consciously in a premeditated way to join China’s cognitive warfare and propaganda against Taiwan. That was not a flippant post erring on the side of economic caution, rather it was a calculated act to appease Beijing.
Oppliger’s piece suggests that Taiwan asserting control of its own borders would “risk making Taiwan look petty and resentful,” but there is nothing petty about denying entry to foreign propagandists engaged in cognitive warfare against the country. Sovereign states have the right to determine who is eligible for entry, and national security considerations are neither petty nor resentful.
The claim that Beijing would love to promote the headline “Michelle Yeoh banned from Taiwan” could not be further from the truth. Beijing loathes mention of any implication that Taiwan might have control over its own borders as a sovereign state. In fact, such a headline would not even be published by any Chinese media, which are only allowed to refer to Taiwan as “China’s Taiwan.” Beijing would certainly struggle to explain the implications of such a headline, as it would imply China had a role in the decision.
Rather, China would seek to downplay the story, which demonstrates precisely the importance of such an act. It would seize global headlines, demonstrating plainly and clearly for the world that Taiwan is a sovereign state with control of its own borders.
Equating that ban with China’s notorious human rights record is not just laughable, but bordering on offensive. Countries such as Australia and Canada regularly ban public figures from entering based on public comments, yet no one questions whether those states are democracies that generally respect human rights. By contrast, China is an authoritarian state that has been credibly accused and found guilty of genocide, with no pretensions to democracy.
I admire Oppliger’s call for Taiwan to instead invite Yeoh to return for a publicity tour highlighting the nation’s democracy and diverse freedoms. However, we all know she would not accept such an invitation. Those actors and public figures know what they are doing when they deny Taiwan’s very existence and support Chinese propaganda. It is high time they started paying the consequences for their actions.
Sasha B. Chhabra is a visiting fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taipei.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the