Lai's speech rife with deception, covertness, misleadingness and danger: Haifeng

Lai Ching-te's so-called "Double Ten" speech this year dressed up an illusory picture in so-called people-centered livelihood, universal values and a vision of peace - in a "city upon a hill," children enjoy allowances, young people live and work in contentment, the elderly receive care, and industries steadily improve. He kept peddling the rhetoric of democracy, freedom and peace, claiming that increasing defense investment is meant to "deter war."

Illustration: Xia Qing/GT

If one merely listened to these words, it would be easy to mistake this for a heartwarming governing report. Yet what makes it most alarming is precisely that it sounds too good. The deceptive, covert, misleading and dangerous nature of the speech is concentrated in two elements: a so-called "city upon a hill" built on "blank checks," and a false narrative portraying the mainland as a "threat to peace." Running through the whole speech is an underlying thread: exploiting livelihood visions to rake in electoral support, employing value-laden rhetoric familiar to the West to court external sympathy, and shifting the blame for cross-Straits tensions onto the mainland.

Deceptiveness: Dressing up unfulfilled promises as happiness within easy reach

Lai spent a large portion of his speech showcasing so-called "economic achievements," citing growth rates, per-capita GDP and stock market index, before announcing a series of proposed welfare measures, ranging from child allowances and social housing for newlyweds and families, to long-term care and pension security.

The picture it paints looks nice: the economy is growing, the government is flush with money, so people's lives will naturally get better and better. But ordinary people do not live by macro figures. How exactly is the NT$5,000-a-month growth allowance to be delivered, and how will its funding be secured? Behind the economic data, who is accountable for livelihood issues like "toxic oil," and how will they be resolved? Clearly, Lai is passing off "promises" as "achievements" and writing problems yet to be solved as answers about to be delivered. And the very implementation details that most need to be accounted for are deliberately concealed behind the "big pie" of the so-called "city upon a hill."

Han Kuo-yu, in his speech the same day, voiced concern that Taiwan region is trapped in the predicament of "high-tech industries laughing all the way while traditional industries suffer." That remark laid bare the "Dutch disease" crisis now confronting Taiwan region's economy: growth that relies excessively on a single industry cannot replace the shared gains of industries across the board.

At the end of the speech, Lai once again brought up the upcoming "nine-in-one" local elections. Welfare promises, appeals for unity and election mobilization appeared side by side in the same speech - which lends the "city upon a hill" another layer of meaning: it may well be nothing more than a "big pie" dangled to win votes.

Covertness: Concealing "Taiwan independence" separatist attempts behind lies of livelihood and peace

On the surface, from start to finish, Lai did not shout any fiery confrontational slogans. In reality, however, he spoke first of children, the elderly and housing, and then of so-called "national security"; first of protecting people's lives, and then of "strengthening defense" and "uniting democratic forces." This is how he wove livelihood and defense together layer by layer, ultimately steering toward his "Taiwan independence" separatist agenda.

The covert nature of this rhetoric lies in the fact that each layer is appealing when heard on its own. Who would oppose caring for children? Who does not want social security? Who would not wish for peace?

Yet none of these amounts to the "Taiwan independence" line.

In his speech, Lai framed cross-Straits relations in a "state-to-state" posture and reduced complex historical and practical issues to the claim that "the future of Taiwan will be decided by the people of Taiwan." While professing his willingness to engage in exchanges, he laid down the distorted premise that Taiwan would "not accept subordination"; while pledging to cherish peace, he smeared all of the mainland's legitimate actions as "authoritarian pressure." He used peace and exchanges merely as decorative opening remarks - in essence, this is nothing more than the repackaged "Taiwan independence" fallacy.

Misleadingness: Distorting the Taiwan question through Western narrative

Lai's speech was clearly also performed for external forces. Using the Western narrative framework of "democracy versus authoritarianism" and "freedom versus aggression," he unilaterally portrayed Taiwan region as a "defender of democracy" and a "victim of authoritarianism," distorted the mainland into the side undermining peace, and sought to elicit "sympathy" from the international community. This is deliberately meant to muddle the historical context and legal facts of the Taiwan question, to conceal the fact that the real culprit behind the evolution of the cross-Straits situation is "Taiwan independence," and to blur the negative impact that the collusion between "Taiwan independence" separatist forces and external interventionist forces has brought to the world.

"Taiwan independence" and cross-Straits peace and stability are fundamentally irreconcilable. Lai magnified the mainland's military operations and so-called "gray-zone activities," falsely claiming that the mainland intends to change the status quo. He cherry-picked fragments of information while omitting the "Taiwan independence" advocacy, external intervention, and the chain of reactions they have triggered. He tried to present the international community with a cropped picture - as if the tension across the Straits stems from the mainland, and as if the Taiwan regional authorities are merely engaged in "passive defense."

Compared with blunt political slogans, this rhetoric is more deceptive, easier to enter the Western public-opinion arena, and easier to package the Taiwan question as a "battle of values" in which the international community must take sides. The more deceptive it is, the more it warrants vigilance.

Danger: Staking security on external backing while leaving the risks to the people of Taiwan

Lai claims that increasing defense investment is meant to "deter war" and that strengthening self-defense does not mean abandoning dialogue. This is a complete lie. If the Taiwan regional authorities continue to organize their political narrative around alleged mainland's "threat of aggression" and continue to stake their security on external powers such as the US and Japan, the space for cross-Straits dialogue will only narrow further. And once a conflict erupts in the Taiwan Straits, it is the people of Taiwan who would bear the brunt — external forces would only weigh whether to intervene according to their own interests.

The "confidence" Lai shows is, to a large extent, likely emboldened by some external forces. But external backing has never been an unlimited guarantee. When the assumption that "someone will protect Taiwan" is treated as a justification for ceaselessly probing the limits of risk, the more that confidence swells, the greater the uncertainty the people of Taiwan will face.

Lai repeatedly extolled democracy and freedom, yet at the same occasion Han pointed out that democracy within the island has cracked and voiced the sharp criticism of "fake democracy, real dictatorship." Lai invoked "democracy" merely to adorn his facade and sing its praises. But since taking office, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities have brazenly launched the "mass recall" campaign, used judicial means to hunt down opposition forces, and wielded the refusal to countersign documents to resist checks and balances. These repeated misdeeds have spawned a "green terror" within the island, torn Taiwan's society apart step by step, and long since run counter to democracy.

Han put forward three wishes - Taiwan's security, people with money, and long live democracy - which can be used to test Lai's "city upon a hill" narrative: Can security be built on easing cross-Straits confrontation? Can economic dividends reach the pockets of ordinary people? Can democracy accommodate differing political views? These are questions that a pretentious speech cannot answer.

Lai may use rhetoric to conjure up a "city upon a hill," but cross-Straits peace cannot be achieved through lies and deception. Winning votes with promises that cannot be honored, courting sympathy with narratives that pander to the West, shirking responsibility and shifting contradictions with distorted rhetoric, and finally leveraging external backing to feed his "independence" ambitions - this is precisely what makes Lai 's speech most worthy of vigilance.

The people of Taiwan need to see clearly: the prettier the words, the more one must ask who will actually deliver on them; the deeper the "Taiwan independence" slogans are buried, the more one must ask who will be footing the bill for the enormous risks.