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.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Ahead of US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) meeting today on the sidelines of the APEC summit in South Korea, an op-ed published in Time magazine last week maliciously called President William Lai (賴清德) a “reckless leader,” stirring skepticism in Taiwan about the US and fueling unease over the Trump-Xi talks. In line with his frequent criticism of the democratically elected ruling Democratic Progressive Party — which has stood up to China’s hostile military maneuvers and rejected Beijing’s “one country, two systems” framework — Lyle Goldstein, Asia engagement director at the US think tank Defense Priorities, called
A large majority of Taiwanese favor strengthening national defense and oppose unification with China, according to the results of a survey by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC). In the poll, 81.8 percent of respondents disagreed with Beijing’s claim that “there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China,” MAC Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) told a news conference on Thursday last week, adding that about 75 percent supported the creation of a “T-Dome” air defense system. President William Lai (賴清德) referred to such a system in his Double Ten National Day address, saying it would integrate air defenses into a
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS