As Tea Shops’ Political Troubles Boil Over, Who’s Really Hurt?

A series of controversies emerged throughout Taiwan’s to-go tea chains, as Yifang Fruit Tea and other well-known tea chains began explicitly supporting Beijing’s position on Hong Kong and Taiwan’s political status, under pressure from angry Chinese consumers who called them out as “pro-Taiwan.”

Given the large prospect of the Chinese market, many seem to be falling under pressure to support the Chinese on the political front as a requirement to keep profiting in China.

Feeling betrayed given the Taiwanese origin of these to-go tea shops, many consumers on the Taiwan side have called for boycotts of these brands. The fact that tea shops are openly supporting the pro-unification mantra of “One Country, Two Systems” is especially worrying. Three chains have drawn the most attention surrounding their explicit compliance with China’s narrative control:

Yifang Fruit Tea (一芳水果茶)

An Yifang Fruit Tea location initially supported Hong Kong protesters. But soon, a post on Chinese social media Weibo written by the chain promptly condemned the location’s unilateral action and criticized the “violent protesters” in Hong Kong, echoing the rhetoric of the Chinese Communist Party and the Hong Kong administration. Sparking outrage in both Taiwan and Hong Kong, an episode soon ensued as franchise branches across the world expressed differing opinions from the stance of Yifang’s headquarters.

Though Yifang attempted to quell the controversy by promising to “never touch politics,” it seems like the chain’s messy handling of the issue has shown to those watching the situation in China that even boba tea can be effectively politicized to force Taiwanese firms to fall in line with CCP pressure campaign on Taiwan and Hong Kong.

As Yifang resolves its political controversy, a wave of witch hunts over the political stances of Taiwanese tea chains ensued.

CoCo (CoCo 都可)

After a franchise in Hong Kong typed on a receipt “Let’s go Hong Kongers” during the second round of protests in June, this incident was exposed by Chinese internet users in August. In response, CoCo posted on Weibo: “CoCo firmly follows and supports relevant state law and policy, including the fact that the Hong Kong region is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China.” According to Ettoday News, Coco has deleted its Taiwan fan page on Facebook and shut down the Taiwan version of its website shortly after the Weibo post.

Gong Cha (貢茶)

According to a report by Liberty Times News, Gong Cha stated on Weibo that it “firmly supports One Country, Two System” and an account that goes by “Syng Tea Gong Cha” (四雲奶蓋貢茶) expressed “firm support of the One China Principle.” Yet, According to CTS News, Gong Cha’s Taiwan Headquarter claims both aforementioned comments have no connection with the firm’s Taiwan business in Taiwan.

According to Now News, however, Gong Cha is a subsidiary of a Korean owner. According to Wealth Magazine, the Korean branch that Gong Cha Taiwan is subsidiary to is funded by a Japanese private equity firm. The same report states that the acquisition of the Gong Cha Taiwan by its Korean branch was completed in 2016. It remains a question over whether Gong Cha still counts as being Taiwanese given its ownership change.

What’s really going on

Chinese pressure co-opting Taiwanese businesses into accepting and supporting versions of the “one China principle” is nothing new. For example, Baker Wu Pao-chun’s (吳寶春) entry into China eventually led to his acceptance of CCP’s “One Country, Two System” doctrine. 85C Bakery Cafe (85度C) was forced to make similar remarks after a location served a cup of coffee to President Tsai Ing-wen during her layover in Los Angeles last year.

And the pressure extends to businesses worldwide, as seen with China forcing airlines around the world to list Taiwan as a part of China, as a requirement for flying in and out of China.

While the aforementioned tea franchises have explicitly sided with China politically, there are also many other brands whose use of language, whether they intended to or felt they had no choice but to, have drawn ire. Chains such as Milkshop (迷克夏) and Dayung’s (大苑子) came under fire for using the term “Taiwan, China” (中國台灣). These chains were likely accommodating to Chinese online censorship mechanisms rather than attempting to make political statements, however. Milkshop clarified over Facebook that all mentions of “Taiwan” must have “China” preceding it over China’s WeChat. According to Now News, the comments made by Dayung’s was written by a China-based local worker.

The question over comments made by consumer brands in China is a major one. Unfortunately, during a time when news are constantly broken on a twenty-four hour cycle, reporters often quote “netizens” as reliable sources rather than actually conduct field investigation. For all we know, netizens on social media in both China and Taiwan could be CCP-sponsored users specifically tasked with creating chaos. Facebook has been vulnerable to Chinese attackers, and Taiwan’s popular PTT is a frequent experimental ground for social media manipulation by several different groups.

Boycott campaigns are being led over the internet in both China and Taiwan by nationalist sentiments, but it remains unclear how businesses will be affected in the end. China’s totalitarian control over its internet space along with extension of its influences in cyberspace abroad also means that government-sponsored trolling could have played some part in dividing the Taiwanese society.

Since social media are often run by corporate headquarters, individual locations and franchisees who had little say in the headquarter’s policymaking process would be disproportionately impacted. In any case, discontent Taiwanese consumers calling for boycotts in Taiwan will mostly hurt the livelihood of Taiwanese franchisees.

Strangely enough, it seems like many Taiwanese have taken the initiative to point their pitchforks at fellow Taiwanese chains and tea store franchises, and began a witch hunt against Taiwanese targets rather than rally in support against CCP’s narrative dominance. Though it remains a fact that no matter what businesses say, Taiwan remains in the hands of a democratically elected government, not formally controlled by Beijing (for now). Insecurity towards Taiwan’s own political future by the Taiwanese public may have fueled these strong but perhaps misdirected hostility.

It will send a strong message to Taiwanese business owners in China to clearly choose a side. But at the same time, Taiwan must also be aware that the current hostility towards Taiwanese businesses plays directly into what Beijing wants. Boycotting them may have the adverse consequence of forcing them–many of them owned by influential and Taiwanese elites–to choose China as their permanent home in this increasingly zero-sum game.