A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month.
Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.”
This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that Taiwan is part of “the Chinese population,” just following a different system.
Johnson’s phrase eerily echoes Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) “two sides, one family” slogan, rejected by the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese, who do not see themselves as Chinese.
The author said that I twisted Johnson’s statement claiming a majority of Taiwanese “do not want to declare they are a sovereign state independent of Beijing.” Johnson’s unnuanced statement speaks for itself, flying in the face of the nearly 90 percent of Taiwanese who agree that the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan) is a sovereign, independent state not subordinate to Beijing.
The disagreement within Taiwanese society is over the name and future of the country, not whether it is independent of Beijing’s control. The consensus view in Taiwan, and the objective reality, is that the ROC and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are not subordinate to each other.
Tseng wrote that Johnson’s call for Taiwan to increase investment in China “was not a suggestion for future policy, but a factual observation.” This is completely false, his mention of Taiwan investing massively in China came as part of a suggestion to ask Beijing whether they “really want Taiwan,” with no mention of “Taiwan’s willingness to build bridges, and demonstrate its economic strength and goodwill.”
Tseng’s claim that Taiwan wants to build more economic bridges with China belies massive public opposition against increased economic ties, exemplified by the Sunflower and Bluebird movements, in which Taiwanese mobilized to stop legislation that they feared would subjugate Taiwan’s economy to China’s.
My article never stated that Johnson’s speech was generated by artificial intelligence, merely that Johnson implied he wrote his rambling speech with help from ChatGPT. Tseng also denied that Johnson, who built his career on hostility to migration, denigrated migrant caregivers when he said robots were preferable to immigrants in caring for elderly people.
Tseng sees Johnson as a well-regarded statesman who will elevate Taiwan on the world stage, the same line of thinking that led the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to write him a large check.
However, Johnson is simply no longer a “key voice in domestic and international political discourse,” and it is an open secret among the foreign diplomatic corps in Taipei, particularly Europeans, that Johnson’s visit was alienating and viewed with derision. This embarrassment became particularly obvious when Johnson used a joint news conference with President William Lai (賴清德) to bash the British government.
A recent column in The Diplomat by British academic Max Dixon noted that Johnson’s visit underscored the UK’s growing regard for Taiwan, observing that Johnson retains some support within the Conservative Party.
Notwithstanding current dissatisfaction with the Labour government, a general election is unlikely before 2029 and momentum is surging not to the Conservatives, but to Reform UK, animated by immigration concerns. Despite having campaigned for Brexit and the premiership on the issue, Johnson is viewed by Reform supporters as a turncoat, having presided over the largest influx of immigration in decades. If Johnson’s own supporters no longer trust him, how can Taiwan?
Tseng wrongly said that I question the ethics of paying exorbitant speaking fees, given the reported ￡100,000 (US$134,110) honorarium paid for his two-day visit. I question not the ethics, but the utility: What good is ￡100,000 to someone who also received ￡250,000 from mysterious China-based entities? If Taiwan’s international support rides on the size of its checkbook, then it needs to spend more smartly. A spent force who once described himself as a “fervent Sinophile” and greenlit the sale of the UK’s largest semiconductor fab to China is not a sound investment.
China recently announced that it would cut ties with Taiwan-friendly Czech President Petr Pavel over his meeting in India with the Dalai Lama. Pavel, who has stood up on his morals rather than waiting until retirement to find them, retains strong public support, despite China’s backlash. Perhaps what Taiwan needs is fewer checks and more Czechs.
Sasha B. Chhabra is a visiting fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taipei.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS