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 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS