No trade in obedience to Beijing

When Beijing announced new restrictions on a company it identifies with Shen Tu-cheng (沈土城), the father of Legislator Puma Shen (沈伯洋), it portrayed them as an exposure of hypocrisy.

Puma Shen, the Democratic Progressive Party’s Taipei mayoral candidate, opposes China while working with relatives to profit from Chinese businesses, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office said.

The announcement raised the more consequential question of whether trading with Chinese companies obliges someone to accept Beijing’s politics and does that obligation extend to the trader’s children?

On Oct. 14, the office announced restrictions on VWAY, alleging that Shen Tu-cheng had used it to circumvent restrictions imposed last year on another company, Sicuens International Co. It prohibited VWAY from transacting or cooperating with Chinese organizations, businesses and individuals.

The allegations require evidence. Yet the political justification was explicit: Beijing would not permit businesses associated with people it calls “Taiwan independence diehards” to profit from China.

Puma Shen’s Taipei campaign acknowledges that his father’s Latin American trading business purchases products from Chinese suppliers, alongside suppliers elsewhere. Whether transactions occurred as Beijing alleges remains a separate question, but the acknowledged trading relationship does not itself establish political misconduct.

A purchase is simply an exchange. A supplier delivers goods for payment, while a trader buys those goods expecting a margin on resale. Because both parties are pursuing their own commercial interests, neither is bestowing a favor that entitles them to political loyalty.

Yet Beijing’s accusation treats commercial opportunity as a benefit bringing by the Chinese state, carrying an obligation of gratitude and obedience. Under that logic, criticizing the government becomes an act of ingratitude.

Consider where that reasoning leads. A Taiwanese businessperson who buys Chinese machinery would be expected to refrain from challenging Beijing. If that person’s son enters politics, he too must consider whether his views will endanger the family’s access to suppliers, effectively turning a routine commercial tie into a leash on public expression.

Governments impose sanctions, of course. Financial relationships can also warrant scrutiny, particularly when public officials have interests they should disclose. Neither point should be dismissed.

However, genuine scrutiny requires specific questions. Does an official own the company? Have they concealed financial benefits? Have they sought preferential treatment or used public office to advance a private interest? Have they condemned conduct in others while exempting themselves from the same standard?

Those are questions about accountability and a father’s purchases from Chinese suppliers do not answer them.

Nor is opposing Beijing’s coercion equivalent to opposing every commercial exchange with China. A person can buy Chinese products, respect Chinese people and still reject the Chinese Communist Party’s demands, because economic contact does not erase political differences.

Indeed, the restrictions expose precisely the danger that critics of dependence on China have long warned about: An ordinary business relationship can easily be turned into leverage over someone’s political choices.

The family dimension makes that leverage especially troubling. Pressure need not fall directly on a critic to affect them; punishing a parent’s business creates costs that travel through personal relationships, signaling to others that their public positions might bring consequences for relatives who bear no responsibility for them.

Beijing might hope the hypocrisy accusation damages Puma Shen. It might also want to demonstrate that restrictions cannot be escaped by changing companies.

However, the announcement can be read another way: Puma Shen’s opposition has persisted despite the potential cost to his family.

While that does not prove his integrity, it certainly undermines the claim that commercial ties dictate political allegiance.

Taiwanese officials should face scrutiny for their conduct, disclosures and decisions. Allegations should be tested against evidence, without granting anyone immunity merely because Beijing is the accuser.

The same standard requires rejecting conclusions that the evidence does not establish. Trade is not proof of allegiance, just as family association is not proof of misconduct.

Beijing can restrict access to its market. What it cannot reasonably claim is that a commercial transaction purchases the buyer’s political conscience — or that of the buyer’s son.

John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong now living in Taiwan.