A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to highlight the substance and highlight the importance of his support for Taiwan.
First, the most damaging accusations centered on Johnson’s alleged misreading of Taiwan’s political situation. The author wrote that Johnson “frequently referred to Taiwan as a ‘segment of the Chinese population.’” However, a closer look at the full context reveals that Johnson used the phrase in a powerful rhetorical question to Beijing: “Is it really necessary for every segment of the Chinese population to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party? Can there not be places ... that are differently Chinese?”
This explicitly challenges Beijing’s view and shows that the author misinterpreted Johnson.
The author also ignored Johnson’s full description of Taiwan’s population as one that “feels free, feels different and feels a strong sense of Taiwanese identity.” His words were not a political statement about unification with China, but a powerful cultural observation that highlights Taiwan’s distinct identity and unique democratic status.
The author also wrote that Johnson said most Taiwanese do not view their country as sovereign. This completely twisted Johnson’s actual statement that most Taiwanese do not want to “immediately declare they are a sovereign state.” This is a nuanced observation and is not a denial of Taiwan’s sovereignty, but a reflection of the society’s cautious attitude toward unilaterally altering the “status quo.”
Similarly, Johnson’s mention of Taiwan’s “massive” investment in China was not a suggestion for future policy, but a factual observation to illustrate Taiwan’s willingness to build bridges, and demonstrate its economic strength and goodwill, even while facing constant military threats.
The author also wrote that Johnson endorsed a “one country, two systems” framework, which is contradicted by his explicit condemnation of Beijing’s efforts to “impose Chinese communist rule,” “eradicate democracy” and “impose unification.” These strong phrases show that his stance is in direct opposition to Beijing’s political framework.
Beyond the specific words, the author also fundamentally misunderstood the speech’s core arguments. They incorrectly said that Johnson’s speech was artificial intelligence (AI)-generated and he denigrated migrant caregivers by suggesting AI could solve a shortage of care workers. However, Johnson’s comment was a carefully planned part of his speech to highlight a potential technological solution, which becomes possible through Taiwan’s crucial role in the global AI sector.
The author’s broader assessment of Johnson’s visit was also flawed. It wrongly dismissed him as a “has-been” with no influence and questioned the ethics of paying high speaking fees, a common practice for former world leaders. This perspective overlooks the strategic value of engaging prominent international figures. While no longer holding office, Johnson remains a key voice in domestic and international political discourse, providing insights on today’s pressing political issues.
Johnson successfully led a cross-party effort to make the UK one of Ukraine’s most vocal and leading supporters against Russia’s invasion, and has become a household name in Ukraine. His stature as a former British prime minister is an international asset, unequaled by those who have not held a senior Cabinet post. Engaging a figure of this caliber, who can generate global media attention and strengthen bipartisan support for Taiwan, is a valuable diplomatic investment.
The author’s analysis of Johnson’s speech relies heavily on misinterpretations and flawed assumptions. A careful reading of his full remarks reveals a supportive stance for Taiwan’s freedom and democracy, and a clear understanding of the threats it faces. Johnson is a steadfast ally of Taiwan who used his time and platform to defend its unique and vital role on the world stage.
Tseng Yueh-ying manages the Facebook page Translation Matters (翻譯有要緊), which serves as a forum for discussions on language and Taiwanese politics.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS