China says Taiwan president spreading 'heresy' with sovereignty speech
BEIJING: China on Monday accused Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te of "heresy", hostility and provocation, after a speech in which he said the island is "of course" a country and that there is historical evidence and legal proof to back this up.
Beijing says democratically governed Taiwan is "sacred" Chinese territory that has belonged to China since ancient times, and that the island is one of its provinces with no right to be called a state.
Lai and his government strongly reject that view, and have offered talks with China multiple times but have been rejected. China calls Lai a separatist.
China's Taiwan Affairs Office, responding to Lai's Sunday evening speech, said he had intentionally distorted history to promote his Taiwan independence agenda and that the island has never been a country.
"It was a 'Taiwan independence' declaration that blatantly incited cross-strait confrontation, and a hodgepodge of 'Taiwan independence' fallacies and heresies full of errors and omissions," it said in a statement.
"The fallacies fabricated by Lai Ching-te in contravention of history, reality and jurisprudence will only be swept into the rubbish heap of history."
Responding, Taiwan's China-policy-making Mainland Affairs Council said Lai was simply stating historical facts, and Beijing's belief that the island has been Chinese since ancient times and is not a country is "just a fabricated lie without any basis".
"We call on the Chinese communist authorities to face up to the fact that the Republic of China objectively exists and the status quo in the Taiwan Strait that 'the two sides are not subordinate to each other'," it added in a statement.
In 1949, the Republic of China government fled to Taiwan after losing a civil war with Mao Zedong's communists, and that remains the island's formal name.
Lai has repeatedly said that only Taiwan's people can decide their future, and that, as the People's Republic of China has never ruled the island, it has no right to claim it or speak on its behalf.
Taiwan has over the past five years faced stepped-up military and political pressure from China, including war games.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Borneo Post
an hour ago
- Borneo Post
Speak up! Speak up!
The ability of speaking more than one language is a valuable personal asset. — Photo from I HAVE great admiration for anyone who speaks another language besides his own mother tongue. A friend of mine, an Iban, who sadly had joined his Maker, spoke fluent Mandarin and several other Chinese dialects and also the Sarawak Malay. He also spoke Melanau (the Bintulu variety). There was never a dull moment to be in his company. During a happy occasion such as a wedding reception, someone who proposes a toast laced with good humour in two or more languages can turn a solemn situation into one full of laughter. Even during semi-formal discussions like seminars and workshops, it is always interesting to listen to speakers switching from one language to another at will, and yet, can still be fully understood by everybody else in the room. It's a very effective way of disseminating information, especially where the audience consists of people from various educational backgrounds. A language is only useful when, through it, the message is crystal clear – no ambiguity. If two or three languages could convey the same message, so much the better. An audience consisting of various ethnic groups of individuals with varying standards of literacy would greatly benefit from this sort of situation. Malaysians must appreciate the fact that they are allowed to be multilingual. At one stage in the history of Malaysia, there was an attempt to discourage the publication of literature written in Iban, or any other indigenous Borneo languages. The federal government policy then was that every Malaysian must speak Bahasa Malaysia and write in Bahasa Malaysia only. Over time, it was realised that this strict application of the language policy could not work in a multiracial society like Malaysia. I could have told them that! The unity of a nation does not depend solely on one national language. Switzerland has four national languages: French, German, Italian and Romansch. Politically, it is one of the most stable countries in the world and certainly, one of the richest in Europe. Please note carefully that I am not proposing for Malaysia to have four national languages. Not at all. Let the Malay Language remain our 'Bahasa Kebangsaan' (national language) and every Malaysian must continue learning, speaking and writing in it. And let the other languages of the various ethnic groups making up the population of Malaysia be used on a daily basis without hindrance, as is the position now. For the past 30 years, the structure of that language policy has been somewhat relaxed. It is what public policy should be if a multiracial society like ours is to sustain itself. It is hoped that this attitude will be maintained by the government of the day for as long as possible. Whichever political party in power in the country, let the language policy continue to be liberal. Yesterday, someone drew my attention to a report in The Borneo Post of June 22, 2025. It was about a public-speaking competition organised by the Sibu Chapter of the Federation of Sarawak Chinese Independent Secondary Schools for the students from 14 Chinese independent schools in the state. I salute whoever conceived the idea of a public-speaking competition in three languages: Mandarin, Malay and English. What a great idea! We are on the same page. I hope that one day, there would be a competition of this nature in the future: the use of the Iban language or any of the indigenous languages in Sarawak. The organisers of trilingual competitions, please bear that in mind. First, learn one of the languages. It is high time we actively learn each other's language. I wish someone would start a school or classes in the native languages. The Iban language is already a subject taught in a university in Malaysia, but other indigenous languages are not. Think about possibilities. The importance of a language is not confined to communication between individuals, but it is also crucial to racial understanding and racial harmony. The loss of the language means the loss of the culture of the speakers of that language and, with it, racial identity. Ask the Hawaiians what they feel about losing their language. They used to have their own language, but after English was made the main language of the islands and the lingua franca for daily communication, the use of the indigenous language began to wane. Eventually, generations of Hawaiians did not use their mother tongue on a daily basis and the language slowly died out of lack of regular use. For the past 50 years, some young Hawaiians have been trying to revive interest in the language. I do not know what the status is now. My source, a native Hawaiian introduced to me by Dr Yusuf Hannifah in Honolulu in 1971 and became my regular correspondent for years, had passed away. End of personal communication. The latest I heard about the interest in reviving the Hawaiian language was when I read about a group of musicians from Hawaii who came to perform at the Rainforest World Music Festival in Santubong. In a press release, they meant to showcase, through their performances, their depictions of the traditional culture in their own ancestral knowledge in their language (The Borneo Post – June 22, 2025). The sound of music and the lyric of the song can be an excellent medium of communication. For example, the famous song 'Bekikis Bulu Betis' composed by Penghulu Andrewson Ngalai of Sibu, has been sung by the non-Ibans in every conceivable occasion. It is such an excellent medium for the propagation of the Iban language. Back on the 'kulaiwi' artistes. They highlighted their work as part of 'a larger cultural movement to revive Hawaiian language and tradition'. Note the revival of interest in the Hawaiian language and see the importance of the human tongue for the sustainability of human civilisation. * The opinions expressed in this article are the columnist's own and do not reflect the view of the newspaper. Iban language Melanau native sarawak
New Straits Times
7 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Saifuddin: Appointments in national security institutions should not be politicised
BALING: Appointments to positions within national security institutions should not be turned into political or racial polemics, says Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail. He said all appointments, including within the Malaysian Armed Forces (ATM) and the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), are made based on strict screening processes that prioritise merit and service discipline, regardless of race or religion. He said that such issues were non-existent during the 1990s, when officers worked in harmony without regard to ethnicity or background. "Recently, when someone was promoted and received two stars, from one to two, it suddenly became an issue. "Speculative comments then followed, suggesting that if this continues, one day Malaysia could even have a Chinese Prime Minister, and so on. "This is the kind of situation we want to avoid in a multiracial country like Malaysia. Not everything should be viewed through a racial lens. "This is especially true for military institutions. They understand the promotion process well, there's the Armed Forces Council, screening, and various procedures involved," he told reporters after visiting the Sabo Dam construction site along the Kupang River basin here today. Previously, the appointment of Datuk Johny Lim Kean Seng as a Lieutenant General in the ATM drew attention after criticism from Sungai Buloh Pas chief Zaharuddin Muhammad in a social media post. DAP deputy secretary-general Steven Sim had reportedly slammed Zaharuddin's statement, describing it as an insult to the wisdom of the ATM and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. Following this, Pas also expressed concern over the remarks and said it was reviewing further action in response to the allegations, which were deemed to undermine racial harmony in the country. Commenting further, Saifuddin said racially charged remarks such as those are dangerous and do not reflect the spirit of unity in a multiracial nation like Malaysia. He also upheld the recent decree by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Ibrahim, who warned against the use of religion as a political tool to divide the nation. He said the royal reminder clearly reflected His Majesty's concern for national harmony and should serve as guidance to all, regardless of political affiliation. "National unity must always be prioritised, and all parties should stop magnifying racial issues that could jeopardise the country's stability," he said.
Malay Mail
10 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Can Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar get along? Yes — If the world rediscovers strategic civility — Phar Kim Beng
JUNE 28 — In a world marked by sanctions, suspicion, and soundbites, the idea that Xi Jinping, Donald Trump, Ayatollah Khamenei, and Anwar Ibrahim could ever get along may seem far-fetched. But it is not impossible. The world has long misunderstood the difference between ideological differences and strategic necessity. In an era of multipolar competition and post-normal crises, the ability to disagree without destabilizing the global order is no longer a luxury—it is a prerequisite. The answer to whether these four leaders can find common ground is 'yes'—but only if the world learns to value strategic civility over ideological conformity. And only if we recognize the role of strategic convenor powers—like Malaysia under Anwar Ibrahim—in brokering spaces where dialogue, not dogma, prevails. Four leaders, four civilizational trajectories Xi Jinping leads a China determined to reclaim its historical stature through the revival of Confucian governance principles, Party supremacy, and economic statecraft. China's global posture is one of confidence—sometimes defiant, but often methodical. Donald Trump, back in office, rules through disruption. His foreign policy may seem erratic, but there is a pattern: transactionalism, spectacle, and a preference for leverage over long-term entanglements. While he loathes multilateralism, he is not instinctively drawn to war either. He wants deals—big, visible, and beneficial to domestic constituencies. Ayatollah Khamenei, presiding over a beleaguered but resilient Islamic Republic, blends revolutionary theology with geopolitical pragmatism. Despite decades of sanctions and confrontation, Tehran has always kept a channel open for diplomacy—when treated with dignity. And Anwar Ibrahim—a Muslim democrat, intellectual, and reformer—brings moral clarity without moral posturing. He is not just the Prime Minister of Malaysia; he is Asean's most articulate proponent of civilizational dialogue, advocating for coexistence between Islam, the West, and the Confucian East. His track record shows a consistent commitment to rule-based order, justice, and multilateralism anchored in ethics. When strategic interests overlap, so can leaders What connects these four leaders is not their personal affinity but their converging interests. All four, for different reasons, now operate in a world where overreach brings blowback, and where the line between strategic deterrence and economic disaster grows thinner by the day. Trump wants trade wins and less global policing. He remains open to deals that avoid new wars, especially if they burnish his legacy and strengthen U.S. industry. Xi seeks global stability to ensure China's continued rise. Tensions with the U.S. must be managed, not escalated. A rare earth agreement with Washington was recently signed—proof that economic logic can prevail over decoupling rhetoric. Khamenei, behind the veil of defiance, sees value in a stable regional order. Iran's pivot eastward, especially toward China and Asean, reflects a desire to diversify diplomacy and find breathing room from Western isolation. Anwar, more than any other, recognizes that leadership today means navigating contradictions, not escaping them. Under his stewardship, Malaysia is stepping up as a strategic convenor power—offering a rare neutral space for diplomacy between conflicting blocs. The post-normal world needs convenors, not commanders In this post-normal world—characterized by chaos, contradiction, and complexity—what is urgently missing is not hard power, but bridging power. Countries that can bring opposing sides together without being seen as biased are crucial. This is where Malaysia's role as a strategic convenor power becomes indispensable. Malaysia does not lecture. It listens. It does not impose. It hosts. Its voice resonates across the Islamic world, the Global South, and East Asia—not because it is large, but because it is trusted. The Asean Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit, and now growing Asean-GCC-China trilateral dialogues all reflect Malaysia's convening capacity. Anwar's proposal to address global problems through neutral ASEAN mediation, or to build a global moral coalition against Islamophobia and Sinophobia, are not fringe ideas—they are blueprints for how strategic convenors should behave in the 21st century. Lessons from Asean's quiet success The Asean model, for all its imperfections, thrives on strategic civility—a concept the West often mistakes for weakness. ASEAN has shown how ten countries with vastly different systems can pursue consensus, non-interference, and cooperative security without military blocs or coercion. This 'Asean way,' when applied globally, indeed, turned into Asean Will, could moderate the extremes of U.S. unilateralism, Chinese assertiveness, and Iranian resistance. But for that to happen, countries like Malaysia must be given the diplomatic space to facilitate, not just participate. Ayatollah Khamenei, presiding over a beleaguered but resilient Islamic Republic, blends revolutionary theology with geopolitical pragmatism. — AFP pic Toward a new diplomatic quadrilateral Can Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar sit at the same table—perhaps not literally, but diplomatically? If the terms are mutual respect, economic stability, and non-imposition of political systems, the answer is yes. China wants a stable periphery and global markets. The U.S. wants reduced costs and visible wins. Iran wants security guarantees and economic inclusion. Asean—led by Malaysia—wants a world where small states are not trampled by the rivalry of giants. It is not only possible, but necessary, for this emerging diplomatic quadrilateral to form. Conclusion: Replacing clash with convening The time of zero-sum diplomacy is over. No single power—American, Chinese, or Islamic—can impose its version of order without backlash. What the world needs are strategic convenor powers that can host the moral imagination of all civilizations, offering an architecture of dialogue when architecture of dominance is crumbling. Anwar, by not siding with any ideological camp, but standing for values rooted in justice and dignity, is uniquely placed to midwife this new order. Yes, Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar can get along—if the rest of us choose convening over coercion, civility over confrontation, and realism rooted in respect. * Phar Kim Beng is Professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
