The Eldest Son No Longer Wants to Come Home: A Parable of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore

The Eldest Son No Longer Wants to Come Home: A Parable of Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore

Introduction

Recently, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi reiterated in parliament: "A Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency," hinting that Japan might take military action alongside allies under certain circumstances citing "survival-threatening situations."

Beijing reacted strongly, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, state media, and scholars responding in waves. A Chinese Consul General in Osaka even posted on social media threatening to "cut off that neck reaching over," sparking a diplomatic incident and being seen as another example of "wolf warrior" diplomacy.

Around the same time, Singapore's Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, in a Bloomberg interview discussing the Taiwan Strait situation and Singapore's position, emphasized that "Singapore will not choose sides between China and the US," while also stating that "peace across the Taiwan Strait serves Singapore's interests," calling on all parties to exercise restraint and avoid miscalculation.

This interview sparked an uproar on mainland Chinese social media—some accused Wong of "secretly supporting Taiwan independence," others criticized him for "eating Chinese rice while smashing Chinese bowls," with netizens even calling to "boycott Singapore" and "make Singapore pay a price."

For a time, Chinese and Japanese public opinion clashed, Taiwan Strait security was once again weaponized in discourse, and even Singapore—a country that has carefully maintained balance—was dragged into the propaganda warfare.

But if we step back and look within the Chinese-speaking world itself—

Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore are fundamentally one family, just pushed into different roles at different historical moments.

Four Estates, One Family: The Patriarch and Three Brothers

Let's tell this story using the metaphor of a "grand family estate."

1. Mainland and Taiwan: Brothers in Conflict, Two Separate Houses

According to the historical narrative, the Republic of China in Taiwan represents the eldest son's lineage of this once-prosperous family, while today's mainland China represents the second son's lineage.

In years of family decline, foreign neighbors took advantage to seize several ancestral properties—one called "Hong Kong" was leased long-term; another called "Taiwan" had its deed changed outright.

After World War II, the brothers fought. The second son's line defeated the eldest in civil war, forcing the eldest to retreat to the Taiwan estate across the strait, taking some family members, an old genealogy, and the "Republic of China" nameplate to establish a separate household there.

The Eldest Son's Three Stages of Evolution

Stage One: Retaking the Mainland (1949-1980s)

In early years, the eldest son's line was determined to retake control of the family estate.

The eldest son's patriarch insisted:

"I am the legitimate heir, the rightful eldest son!"

"One day, I will return and retake the family estate!"

"The second son's line are merely usurpers who will eventually fall!"

Thus, in the Taiwan estate, the eldest son's line:

Taught descendants "we are legitimate, we will retake the mainland"

Kept the "Republic of China" nameplate

Insisted "I am the legitimate representative of this family"

Stage Two: Living in Peace (1990s-early 2000s)

But as the patriarchs passed away one by one, times changed.

On the mainland side, the second son's line, through decades of patriarchal strong management, despite difficulties and near-collapse at times, eventually grew the family business bigger and bigger, the estate grander and grander, gradually becoming the wealthiest, most powerful, most formidable household in the neighborhood.

On the Taiwan side, though the place was small and resources limited, the eldest son's line also managed through diligent management, open trade, and democratic transformation to maintain the Taiwan estate in good order, with descendants living peacefully and prosperously.

Gradually, the mindset of the eldest son's descendants changed.

The younger generation of the eldest son's line, watching the second son grow increasingly powerful, felt conflicted:

"Retake the mainland? You must be joking—we don't have that strength!"

"Control the family estate? That's the old generation's obsession, what does it have to do with us?"

"We're living well in Taiwan, why should we manage such a huge estate?"

More importantly, the eldest son's descendants increasingly disliked the second son's patriarchal management style:

"The second son's management is so strict, so many rules, constantly demanding obedience, loyalty declarations—we don't want to return and suffer that."

"In Taiwan, though the place is small, at least we're free, can say what we want, elect who we want—isn't that good enough?"

Thus, the eldest son's descendants' mindset shifted from "one day we'll retake control" to "we'll just live well in Taiwan."

Stage Three: Wanting to Sever Family Ties (2010s-Present)

But the real turning point was Hong Kong's turmoil.

2. Hong Kong: The Property Returned, But Hearts Lost

The Hong Kong property, once leased long-term by foreign neighbors, was returned when the lease expired.

The second son's line promised:

"Maintain the status quo for fifty years, no forced immediate changes."

Meaning: let the brother continue living his original lifestyle, take it slow, rely on time and interaction to naturally draw closer.

But twenty-plus years later, as patriarchs passed away, management fell to the second son's current household head. This generation lacks the patience of "gentle rain moistening silently" and began dictating to the Hong Kong brother and nephews—

Demanding they educate children his way

Requiring recitation of the same "ancestral teachings"

Demanding public declarations of "family loyalty"

Hong Kong superficially said "yes, yes, yes," but inwardly resisted. The younger generation particularly resented this management style, often defying it.

The outside "foreign family" that once occupied the property saw clearly: brothers at odds offered perfect opportunity to fan flames and create division, deepening accumulated grievances round after round.

The Three Stipulations: A Trust Breakdown

Worse still, the second son's household head grew angry:

The elder brother's children constantly visited the younger brother's place showing off wealth, throwing down money to "buy" the brother's valuables

The brother accepted the money but felt resentful, believing himself more cultured and refined than these nouveau riche cousins, unwilling to associate

The brother also frequently hosted nephews who quarreled with the elder, annually making a show of publicizing the elder's past embarrassments

The second son's household head felt that as head of household, the brother was harboring his wayward nephews, so demanded three stipulations:

"Any family children violating ancestral teachings, regardless of where they reside, must be returned to the main house for family discipline."

The Hong Kong brother's household erupted over these stipulations, engaging in self-destructive protests—street conflicts, economic paralysis, social division.

The second son insisted family law couldn't be compromised; the brother insisted his lifestyle couldn't be changed.

This turmoil, ostensibly a legal dispute, was fundamentally a complete collapse of trust.

As a result, "One Country, Two Systems for fifty years" gradually came to be understood as:

"Said fifty years, but started imposing 'three stipulations' after just twenty-some years."

Promises were doubted, hearts began to drift away.

Taiwan: Watching from Across the Strait, Hearts Growing Distant

All this was witnessed by the eldest son's descendants in Taiwan.

They observed:

Hong Kong had written promises, yet certain boundaries were continuously redrawn in reality

"High autonomy" space was often squeezed by "national security" and "family law"

Any political conflict could escalate to "return to the main house for family discipline"

Thus, the "Hong Kong experience" quietly became a key judgment in Taiwan hearts:

"If even Hong Kong is like this, what would happen to us if we returned?"

Especially after the "extradition bill," trust in "One Country, Two Systems" hit rock bottom. Hong Kong was no longer a "successful reunification" model but rather became in many Taiwanese eyes "a cautionary tale to be avoided at all costs."

Originally, some among the eldest son's descendants still held illusions about the second son:

"Maybe the second son will become more open-minded?"

"Maybe 'One Country, Two Systems' really can protect our lifestyle?"

"Maybe we can maintain the status quo while gradually drawing closer?"

But Hong Kong's turmoil completely shattered these illusions.

From then on, the eldest son's descendants' mindset shifted from "we don't want to return" to "we absolutely cannot return".

Moreover, some of the eldest son's descendants have zero goodwill toward the second son, even feeling ashamed to be associated.

They say:

"We and the second son's line haven't been one family for ages!"

"After decades in Taiwan, we've developed our own lifestyle, our own values, our own identity."

"Why should we acknowledge being one family just because the second son says so?"

"We want to formally sever family ties, stop being bound in this 'one family' framework!"

These voices sound to the second son like great betrayal and forgetting one's roots.

The second son's household head angrily responds:

"Have you forgotten who your ancestors are?"

"The property you live in, the deed you use, were all left by ancestors—how can you say we're not one family?"

"Whoever dares formally sever family ties will learn what family law means!"

The Brothers' Deadlock: One Won't Let Go, One Won't Return

The second son's logic:

You're the eldest son, but you're also part of this family

Ancestors' deeds clearly state the Taiwan estate belongs to our family

You can have your own lifestyle, but can't deny we're one family

I won't force you to return immediately, but you can't want formal separation

The eldest son's logic:

We've lived in Taiwan for decades, developed our own life

We don't want to return under your patriarchal management

We don't deny common ancestry, but don't want to be bound in a "one family" framework

What we want is to decide our own future, not have you decide for us

The brothers' conflict is thus deadlocked:

The more the second son emphasizes "you're my family," the more the eldest son resents it

The more the eldest son wants to "decide his own future," the more the second son sees "separation, betrayal, forgetting roots"

The more the second son displays strength and hard-line statements, the more the eldest son fears and wants to keep distance

The Takaichi Incident: Outside Interference

This is when Takaichi's "Japan contingency" statement entered the picture—

For Beijing, this is blatant "external interference"

For Tokyo, this is an extension of "survival-threatening situations" within their legal framework

For Taiwan, it's part of seeking external security guarantees as trust in the mainland becomes increasingly difficult

Thus, the Taiwan Strait issue is no longer just "how brothers reconcile" but involves neighbors, distant relatives, allies, even entire regional security networks.

Singapore: The Youngest Brother Who Crossed Oceans and Built His Own Home

Singapore, the youngest brother, has an entirely different background.

He wasn't seized ancestral property, but rather the poorest branch of the family who, unable to survive, was forced to cross oceans seeking livelihood.

Together with immigrants from various places and ethnicities, in a foreign land he lived under others' roofs, pooled resources to buy land, jointly built housing, step by step turning a port town into today's clean, prosperous, clearly-ruled, strictly-disciplined small building.

Today, Singapore, this youngest brother:

In identity, an independent household, with nameplate reading "Republic of Singapore"

Culturally retains much Chinese tradition—speaks Mandarin, celebrates Lunar New Year, worships ancestors

But politically, institutionally, and in terms of identity, very clear he's a sovereign state, not anyone's annexe

He's very clear in his mind:

"Though I'm ethnically Chinese, I'm a Singaporean Chinese, not a Chinese from China.

My culture can identify with Chinese heritage, but my passport, loyalty, and future belong to Singapore."

Watching Hong Kong and Taiwan's turmoil, Singapore observed carefully and with trepidation—

Toward Hong Kong, he feels sympathy but also wariness:

"Good thing I was too poor to have ancestral property back then, could only build my own home, otherwise today would be equally difficult."

Toward Taiwan, he has understanding but keeps distance:

"Your path is your choice, what matters most for me is not getting dragged into war, not choosing wrong sides."

The Lawrence Wong Incident: The Price of Speaking Truth

In Nov 2025, Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, in a Bloomberg interview discussing Taiwan Strait situation and Singapore's position, said:

"Singapore will not choose sides between China and the US"

"Peace across the Taiwan Strait serves Singapore's interests and regional stability"

"We hope all parties exercise restraint and avoid miscalculation, because once conflict erupts, the injured won't just be great powers but all surrounding small nations"

This interview was seen domestically in Singapore as "pragmatic, balanced, aligned with national interests."

But on mainland Chinese social media, it sparked uproar—

Some accused Wong of "secretly supporting Taiwan independence"

Others criticized him for "eating Chinese rice while smashing Chinese bowls"

Some questioned "what right does Singapore have to point fingers at the Taiwan Strait issue"

Netizens even called to "boycott Singapore" and "make Singapore pay a price"

The Second Son's View of Singapore: How Can You Not Side With Me?

In the second son's eyes, Singapore's statements were very uncomfortable:

You're a Chinese-majority country, how can you not side with me?

The Taiwan Strait issue is my family's internal matter, what right does an outsider have to comment?

With such close economic ties over the years, how dare you say such things?

The second son felt aggrieved:

"In the early reform era, who first came to invest, bring technology, teach management? Wasn't it you, Singapore?"

"Suzhou Industrial Park, Tianjin Eco-city—which wasn't built with Singapore's help?"

"Now you're prosperous, I'm strong, and you start siding with the West, pointing fingers at me?"

Singapore's Self-Perception: I'm Just Protecting My Survival Space

Singapore, facing the second son's anger, also felt helpless:

I've never "chosen sides," I'm just protecting my survival space

I have investments in you, also in the US, Europe, Southeast Asia—precisely why I can't just listen to one side, I must balance all parties

If the Taiwan Strait erupts in war, the injured won't just be you and Taiwan but the entire region's economy and security—of course I have a right to care

I respect your sovereignty claims, but I also have a right to express hope for peace—this isn't "interfering in internal affairs," it's "expressing concern"

Singapore also has its own ledger:

"Back then I was the first to invest in you, help build industrial parks, teach modern management—this was mutual benefit, not charity from anyone"

"Over these years we've cooperated as equals, no one owes anyone"

"I'm a Chinese-majority country, but I'm not China's vassal state—these are two different things"

Singapore knows well:

"I'm too small to withstand choosing wrong sides; I'm too shrewd to choose sides easily.

I just need to do my business well, manage my home, maintain relationships with all sides—

This is my survival strategy as an independent household."

Deeper Meanings of the Wong Incident

Wong's interview, superficially a diplomatic statement, actually revealed several deeper issues:

1. Ethnic Identity ≠ Political Alignment

Though Singapore is Chinese-majority, national interest always takes priority over ethnic identity.

Singapore won't automatically side with China because "we're all Chinese," just as it won't automatically side with America because of "Western values."

Singapore's position is always Singapore's position, not any great power's vassal.

2. Economic Ties ≠ Political Loyalty

Historically, Singapore was indeed first to invest in China during reform, bringing technology and management expertise.

But this doesn't mean Singapore "owes" China anything or must politically "align."

Mutually beneficial economic relationships shouldn't be simplified into political blackmail of "who owes whom favors."

3. Small States Have Small State Survival Logic

Singapore, caught between great power competition, fears not offending one side but being forced to choose, losing balance.

If Taiwan Strait erupts in war:

Sea lanes blocked—what happens to Singapore's trade?

Regional security collapses—what happens to Singapore's investments?

Great power confrontation escalates—what happens to Singapore's neutral status?

So Taiwan Strait peace isn't just "China's business" but the entire region's—Singapore certainly has a right to care.

4. "Not Choosing Sides" ≠ "Not Speaking"

Singapore's "not choosing sides" isn't "keeping silent" but "maintaining balance among parties while expressing pragmatic concerns."

Wong's interview precisely practiced this balance:

He didn't say "support Taiwan independence"

He didn't say "oppose China's reunification"

He only said "hope for peace, avoid conflict"

This is the most basic human sentiment, yet in propaganda warfare gets interpreted as "anti-China," "pro-Taiwan."

Common Insights from Takaichi and Wong Incidents

Takaichi's "Taiwan contingency theory" and Wong's "Taiwan Strait peace theory," though from different starting points, both triggered strong backlash from mainland public opinion.

These two incidents jointly reveal several issues:

1. Speaking or Not, the Real Issue Isn't "One Statement"

Speaking or not speaking doesn't actually change great powers' real calculations.

When Taiwan Strait conflict truly ignites:

Japan will decide based on its own survival, security, alliance arrangements—not based on what it once said or whether a tweet gets deleted

Singapore will decide based on its own national interests, regional security, economic considerations—not based on netizen emotions or great power pressure

Propaganda warfare can be fought intensely, but real competition happens beyond propaganda.

2. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" Propaganda Wars Continuously Erode Trust and Dialogue Space

One side has "Japan's militarism revival" historical narrative, the other has "China threat theory" security narrative, mutually amplifying and self-reinforcing.

The question is: when we label all dissenting opinions as "anti-China," "pro-Taiwan," "traitor," how much rational dialogue space remains?

When we view all voices caring about Taiwan Strait peace as "interfering in internal affairs," how many sincere suggestions can we still hear?

3. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore All Drawn Into Psychological and Propaganda Warfare

Most importantly, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore—these "family fringe properties"—all get drawn into psychological and propaganda warfare, becoming others' chips rather than simple living spaces.

Taiwan drawn into US-China competition, becomes a "chip"

Hong Kong drawn into institutional disputes, becomes a "model"

Singapore drawn into propaganda warfare, becomes a "target"

And all this continuously erodes trust and identity within the Chinese-speaking world.

Self-Reflection: Why Can't We Make the Other Side "Naturally Draw Near"?

Beyond emotions, there's a more painful but necessary question:

If we truly hope Taiwan "comes home," why over decades have Taiwan hearts grown increasingly distant?

The phrase "external forces interfering" alone can't explain the entire problem.

The Eldest Son's Mindset Evolution Is the Best Proof

In early years, the eldest son was determined to retake the family estate—at least then, the eldest son still acknowledged the premise of "we're one family."

Later, the eldest son's descendants no longer wanted to retake the estate, just wanted to live peacefully in Taiwan—though unwilling to manage the second son's affairs, at least still acknowledged "we're one family."

Now, the eldest son's descendants don't even want to acknowledge "one family"—this is the most frightening change.

Why did this happen?

Not because of external force interference (though that exists)

Not because the eldest son's descendants forgot their roots (though some say this)

But because the second son's patriarchal management made the eldest son's descendants increasingly afraid, increasingly unwilling to return

Hong Kong's turmoil pushed this fear to its peak.

The Hong Kong Experience Has Already Shown Everyone

If promises can be easily reinterpreted

If institutional design prioritizes serving power over protecting rights

If everything can be overridden by three words: "national security"

Then even with common ancestry and shared history, it won't necessarily earn national identity and political trust.

To make Taiwan, Hong Kong, even overseas Chinese truly identify, relying on "I'm your elder brother" "you're my compatriot" is far from enough.

More important:

Can you provide a predictable system rather than rules that can change tune anytime?

Can you provide a credible promise rather than post-hoc textual gymnastics?

Can you provide a life and society people aspire to rather than making people feel they're just passive recipients?

Otherwise, no matter how much you emphasize "same script, same ancestry," "shared bloodline," it's hard to change—

Whether others fear you more or trust you more

Whether they're afraid to get too close or willing to proactively approach

Singapore's Reminder: Chinese Nations Can Have Different Answers

Through decades of practice, Singapore quietly offered the Chinese-speaking world a very realistic reminder:

Chinese people can build excellent, law-based, orderly, dignified modern nations without relying on grand unification.

This answer might sound harsh to the second son but merits reflection:

Ethnic identity ≠ national identity

Cultural belonging ≠ political loyalty

Common language and customs don't automatically equal common political destiny

Singapore's existence also shows the outside world another possibility:

"Chinese civilization" doesn't necessarily equal "one particular political system."

Conclusion: Beyond the Noise, Consider the Real Question

Takaichi's incident will pass

Wong's interview will be covered by new news

Sino-Japanese diplomatic disputes will have another round

Taiwan Strait situation will continue swaying amid various military exercises, statements, propaganda warfare

But for mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore—these "four estates of one family"—the real question is singular:

What kind of Chinese-speaking world do we actually want?

One built on:

Overpowering with volume, coercing with history, binding with bloodline

Or one built on:

Convincing through institutions, gathering through trust, attracting through charisma?

We can expect unification, but can't reduce it to verbal attacks and military threats

We can hope for peace, but can't only entrust peace to others' restraint

We can emphasize sovereignty, but must understand sovereignty needs conviction and charisma for support

We can emphasize bloodline, but must recognize identity accumulates through daily life's sense of security and trust

When a country has both strength and charisma, both sovereignty and credibility

Many things need no forcing, hearts naturally draw near

Many disputes need no participation, will gradually lose their market

Before that

Perhaps we needn't rush to ask "how are others wrong"

But should calmly ask ourselves—

"Why can't I be strong enough that others naturally want to draw near

Rather than instinctively wanting to keep distance at the mention of my name?"

"Why did the eldest son once want to retake the estate, but now won't even acknowledge 'one family'?"

"Why the more I display strength and make hard-line statements, the more others fear and want to flee?"

This is perhaps the lesson that the Takaichi incident, Wong's interview, Hong Kong's experience, Taiwan's anxiety, and Singapore's choice jointly teach us—the hardest to comprehend yet most worth pondering.

Also Available on Medium

This article is also published on Medium for wider reach:

medium.com/@sohclgg/...

If you found this analysis valuable, please consider sharing or leaving a response. Thank you!

About the Author

A professional with 34 years of experience in hotel and real estate industry, now based in Singapore. Observing the political economy and social changes from an Engineer's rational perspective.