Chapter 4 A Case Study of Taiwan
4.3 The CCP Used the Right to Work Influencing Taiwan’s Public Opinion
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
public opinion of Taiwanese people, we have invested heavily in Taiwanese media, such as CTiTV, CTV, EBC, and TVBS” （果殼，2019）. Recalling the situation in 2018, a few months before the 9-in-1 election, Taiwan TV stations appeared to be racing to report Han Kuo-yu news, and even an abnormal phenomenon of broadcasting Han 24 hours a day.
A survey report published by the NCC about this situation indicated that the 4 Taiwanese TV stations that broadcast the highest proportion of Han are just exactly CTiTV, CTV, EBC, and TVBS named by Wang Li-qiang（果殼，2019）.
Especially, there are some 70 media personnel from Taiwan were present at the opening ceremony of the 4th “Cross-Strait Media People Summit” (兩岸媒體人峰會) in Beijing on May 10, 2019, during the forum, Wang Yang, chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and the member of the Politburo Standing Committee in charge of the United Front work, asserting that “media on both sides must uphold national ethics, fulfill their social responsibilities, and jointly play the role of communicating to people on both sides of the Strait by promoting Chinese culture, deepening the integration of emotions, and continuing to promote the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and promote the process of peaceful reunification of the motherland, and strive to realize the China dream” (Michael Cole, 2019).
Unsurprisingly, Want Want China Times Media Group was the co-organizer. Eventually, Taiwan’s media have been interfered by the CCP is an explicit fact without any ambiguity.
4.3 The CCP Used the Right to Work Influencing Taiwan’s Public Opinion
The core principle of the United Front is to combat the authority and confidence of the Taiwan government through the mouth of the Taiwan people. That is the idea of “united
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
secondary enemy to against the primary enemy”, “plant contradiction within the society”, the concept of sharp power application.
There is no denying that Tsai Ing-wen’s administration has faced the biggest challenge:
the economy. In terms of domestic affairs, in order to keep the national finances from bankruptcy, Tsai administration promote annuity reform, it is inevitable that it has encountered many criticisms （謝佳珍、游凱翔，2018）; in terms of foreign policy, because there is still controversy over the 1992 Consensus between the two sides of the strait, cross-strait relations have fallen into a deterioration, and the number of tourists from China has decreased, which has directly impacted Taiwan’s tourism-related industries. For instance, the tourism market has shrunk, and hotels in central and southern Taiwan begun to sell their business, other business that also rely on the Chinese tourists for their livelihood, such as restaurants, guesthouses, tourist coach companies, travel agencies, tour guides are also experiencing the pressure of losing stable economic sources（張嘉伶，
2017）. In short, Taiwan’s domestic live economy is now under pressure from a downturn, low wages, and reduced pensions. Although the government has vigorously promoted the New Southbound Policy to balance the economic, trade, and tourism resources that overly depend on China, the number is still insufficient.
This allowed the CCP to focus on wielding sharp power. In recent years, it has constantly thrown out preferential policies and benefits to the people of Taiwan, actively attracted Taiwanese people’s goodwill toward China, and tried to cause people’s dissatisfaction to the Tsai administration（呂苡榕，2018；楊涵之，2019）. In other words, these preferential policies serve political purpose through economical means. Some
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
commentators believe that the CCP deliberately launched the public opinion warfare through the mouth of the Taiwan people to accuse Tsai administration of refusing to recognize the consequences of the 1992 Consensus. Also, attempted to create the perception that the Tsai administration is indifferent to those who were lonely working abroad, but only engaged in the ideological manipulation, and Tsai administration is the troublemaker on the both sides of the strait, to crack down on government credibility.
The cases of the CCP’s sharp power operation are all-embracing globally. Taiwan should have the most manifest perception. For example, for movie stars, corporates with Chinese market, or multinational corporates such as airline company, hotels or restaurants, are required to express their position on the political and national identity. It is required to submit, apologize, and declare to cooperate with the established political principles, even further conduct self-censorship, curb free speech and academic freedom, or infringe free well to comply with specific utterances, statements and even force others to obey. Below I divide these cases into two parts: Enterprises and Entertainers.
(1) Enterprises:
China uses its vast market and economic influence as incentives to exert political purpose and agenda to shape people in Taiwan, which has not merely happened in recent years. For enterprises, it can be traced back in 2012. HTC chairman Cher Wang (王雪紅) held a press conference in her personal name and expressed her views on cross-strait peaceful development and the 1992 Consensus before the 2012 presidential election. She emphasized that holding a press conference is her own idea, and her statement does not represent HTC. Wang express that “whether it is a Christian or a person in charge a
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
company responsible for Taiwan society, it is hard to imagine a cross-strait relationship without the 1992 Consensus”, “it is also difficult to imagine that some people say no to the more peaceful cross-strait relations”, calling up Taiwanese to cherish the “1992 Consensus”
between the island and the Chinese mainland and said that without the consensus, Taiwan would become an “unpredictable” society（吳佳穎，2012）.
In the same year, Chang Yung-fa ( 張榮發 ), founder and chairman of Taiwan’s Evergreen Group told the press that the “1992 Consensus is in the best interests of Taiwan”.
Chang said that “due to the 1992 Consensus the cross-strait relations can have a foundation for cross-strait dialogue”, without this foundation, cross-strait relations will be unable to communicate and Taiwan’s economy will be miserable” （林朝億，2012）. Lin Yi-shou (林義守), the founder of the Kaohsiung’s E United Group said that “the 1992 Consensus was beneficial for both sides, and it was the only and best way to narrow Taiwan’s south-north growth gap” （陳宥臻，2012）. Other Taiwanese entrepreneurs who have also expressed support for the “1992 consensus” include Douglas Tong Hsu (徐旭東), chairman
of the Far Eastern Group, Frank Liao (廖錦祥), chairman of Chi Mei Corp, Wang Wen-yuan (王文淵), president of Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Terry Gou (郭台銘), chairman of Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd.
However, evidence could be introduced to illustrate the fact that China has strengthened its use of economy to influence politics in Taiwan. China uses its vast market and economic influence to put pressure on others, to subject them to self-censorship, and to achieve the effect of manipulating public opinion. Haipawang (海霸王), a Taiwanese Restaurant Group was alleged as “Green Business (綠色台商)”, and after Tsai Ing-wen
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
took office in 2016, the company was fined 400,000 RMB by the Chinese officials for spot check and pressure on the grounds of mislabeled. Considering the pressure from the Chinese side, Haipawang had to issue a statement: “Resolutely support the both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China” （李修慧，2016）.
One of the striking examples happened in 2018, which is the case of Wu Pao-chun (吳 寶春), a Taiwanese baker who went to Shanghai to open a new shop, but Chinese netizens found out his interview with the media in 2016 stating that “although China has 1.3 billion markets, there are more than 7 billion in the world, I will not look at China alone”. This remark was misinterpreted as “rather starve than making a penny in the mainland”, and the Chinese netizens accused him as “pro-Taiwan Independence”, and threatened to resist
“Taiwan independence bread”. In order to calm the dispute, Wu issued a statement that he is a baker from “Taiwan, China”, “I am proud of being a Chinese, and “both sides of the Taiwan Strait are a family”, and he also emphasized “supporting the 1992 Consensus” （沈 聰榮，2018）.
In fact, expressing a stance on cross-strait relations has become an unavoidable problem for Taiwanese companies to do business in China. Similar incident happened in August, 2018. At that time, President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan passed by one of the 85 Café in Los Angeles before her trip to visit Belize, she entered the coffee shop to buy coffee and chatted with the Taiwanese staff, one of the staffs took out a pillow for Tsai to sign on it, but later the China state-owned media Global Times issued a condemnation to the 85 Café for giving Tsai “a big gift”, which caused Chinese netizens to criticize 85 Café as a “Taiwan independent company”. China’s local government has also put pressure on the 85 Café in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
China on the grounds of food safety. Due to the pressure from both the society and authority, the company issued a statement to support 1992 Consensus, asserted that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait are a family”, and change Tsai’s title from “President” to “Leader” （翁嫆 琄、陶本和，2018）. There were even more cases regarding the pressure from the Chinese authority and the netizens requesting for express political position. Garmin Corporation, which started the business with GPS navigation, was found on its website including Taiwan as a country. In fact, one of the founders, Min Gao, was born and raised in Nantou, Taiwan. Later, the company issued a statement that “Garmin has always upheld China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” (Elise Reuter, 2018); Former Zhangzhou Taiwanese Businessmen Association Honorary Chairman, and Kingcan Company (福貞 控股) Chairman, Li Rong-fu (李榮福) attended the Spring Festival Friendship Event at Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF). At the time, he expressed support for President Tsai Ing-wen during the interview. Later he was attacked as two-sided Taiwanese businessmen, and was removed from the Zhangzhou Taiwanese Businessmen Association. Under the pressure from China, he twice published advertisement in Taiwan newspapers against Taiwan independence and in support of the “1992 Consensus” （施曉光、曾韋禎，2018).
Not only the Taiwanese company are demanded to express its political position. Many multinational corporations are also requested to explicitly express their stance on the sovereignty issue between China and Taiwan. American fashion brand—Coach was found to juxtapose “Taipei-Taiwan”, “Hong Kong”, with “Beijing-China” in a design of the T-shirt; Japanese sport brand—Asics was also found on official website outside China, listing Hong Kong and Taiwan as country, and accused of “splitting China”; American fashion
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
brand—Calvin Klein was found on its U.S. official website interpreting Taiwan and Hong Kong as “regions” different from China, and accused of splitting China; French fashion brand—Givenchy was also found out one of its women’s T-shirt, like Coach, listing Hong Kong and Taiwan as countries. Later all these brands have issued statement to apologize, Givenchy and Asics even emphasized “adhering to integrity of the motherland’s territory”
and “supporting one China” （李修慧，2019）. The Maryland-based hotel company, Marriott Group, was accused of including Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong as a selection of a questionnaire: “Which country do you currently live in?”. Later Marriott Group issued two apologies, stating “respecting China’s sovereignty and territory integrity as always”. Three days later, Global Times saying that after receiving news from Chinese netizens, Delta Airlines Chinese website also listed Taiwan and Tibet in the “country” option, followed by Zara and Medtronic. The Civil Aviation Administration of China (中國民航局) arranged talk with the Head of Delta Airlines immediately and required to rectify the mistake. A few hours later, Delta Airline acknowledged the mistake on the official website, expressing that
“Marriott International respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China. We don’t support separatist groups that subvert the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China. We sincerely apologize for any actions that may have suggested otherwise” (Benjamin Haas, 2018).
Beginning with the case of Delta Airlines in January, 2018, The Civil Aviation Administration of China wrote a letter to 44 foreign airlines on April 25, 2018, requesting that the title of “Taiwan” should be amended by adding “China” to it, and the color of Taiwan and China on map should be the same. There 44 airlines, including American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Japan Airlines, All Nippon Airways, Air India,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
British Airways… etc., all compromised to the demand from Chinese authority. These airlines either changed “Taiwan” to “Taiwan-China” or removed Taiwan and only put the name of the cities “Taipei, Taoyuan International Airport”, or “Chinese Taipei” （李秉芳，
2018）.
(2) Entertainers
In addition to pressure on Taiwanese enterprises and multinational corporations, China is also putting pressure on Taiwanese entertainers s who go to China for development, forcing them to express their political stance and identity. For example, on January 13, 2016, Chou Tzu-yu (周子瑜), a 16 years old female singer from Taiwan who is a member of Korean Pop Music Group— “TWICE”. She was accused as “Taiwan independent entertainers” by Huang An (黃安), a pro-China Taiwanese who is currently living in China.
Because she was waving the flag of Republic of China (Taiwan) on Korean TV show, later boycotted by Chinese TV station and netizens. Her management company—JYP Entertainment could not afford the stock price plummeting and the endless abuse and resistance of radical netizens. Therefore, a video of Chou Tzu-yu apology was posted on the Internet. In the video she said: “There is only one China, the cross-straits territories are one in the same, and I am proud to consider myself thoroughly Chinese. As a Chinese person who performs abroad, I say to my employers and internet friends on both sides of the straits—I’m terribly sorry for the harm I have caused, and I feel ashamed” (Josh Horwitz, 2016). Park Jin Young, boss of the JYP Entertainment also issued an apology: “I have again experienced in a profound way that to cooperate with a country, you should respect its sovereignty, culture, history and the feelings of its people” (Chris Buckley &
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Austin Ramzy, 2016). Another case of pressure from the Chinese netizens accusing Taiwan actress as “Taiwan Independence”. Vivian Sung (宋芸樺), a Taiwanese actress, gained popularity in the movie “Café. Waiting. Love” and “Our Times”. She was shortlisted for the Best Actress in the Golden House Awards, and then developed in China. In August, 2018, a short video which was filmed in 2015 was dug out. In that video, Vivian Sung expressed “my favorite country is Taiwan and I want to stay in Taiwan with my family” to a friend unintentionally, which provokes social media storm in China. Later criticism like
“please stay in Taiwan”, “Taiwan Independence” was flew over the Internet. In order to appease angry Chinese netizens, she wrote a statement on her Weibo on 2th August, publicly stated that “I am a Chinese, a post-90s Chinese girl, Taiwan is my hometown, China is my homeland”, “Two sides of the Taiwan Strait are always a family”, and I apologize for the previous video, she said (Tsai Shan-Ling, 2018). With more entertainers develop in China in recent years, this kind of disputes has grown drastically. Entertainers like Ruby Lin (林心如), Lu Guang Zhong (盧廣仲), Rainie Yang (楊丞琳), Lee Wei (李 威), Nana Ou-Yang (歐陽娜娜), Tiffany Ann Hsu (許瑋甯) are all ever involved in the storm （黃嘉儀，2018）. Even recently, Potter King (波特王), a Taiwanese internet celebrity, has many fans on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. On December 14, 2019, he posted a video co-produced with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen on YouTube, titled “I tease President Tsai Ing-wen today! I am the first YouTuber who tease President!” (今天 撩蔡英文總統！全世界第一個撩總統的 YouTuber！). However, the video has also quickly attracted accusations from the Chinese internet company—Papitube, which is responsible for promoting Potter King’s business in China. According to the screenshots of WeChat conversations posted by Potter King on Facebook, Papitube requested Potter
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
King to immediately delete the video, and stated that the controversy lies with the words
“President” in the video. Potter King refused to delete the video and the contract with the Papitube was terminated. Papitube issued a statement on Weibo saying that it had terminated the contract with Potter King, indicating that the reason was “Potter King’s values and the behaviors he has generated are different from the spirit of integrity and professionalism the company has always promoted”, and expressed “strongly condemned Potter King’s misconduct”. And the last sentence of the statement was “Papitube severely rebukes any words and deeds that harm national honor, adheres to the one China principle, and defends national sovereignty” （石濤，2019）.
From the above discussion, it is obvious that the CCP’s sharp power is through its influence in economic and trade market, the right to work, and even the security of survival, that is, the comprehensive power to publicly or privately influencing specific targets, subjecting the target to self-censorship, to achieve the purpose of controlling and affecting public opinion. This not only affects freedom of speech, but also threatens democracy and national security.