Accusations of ethnic divisions have been used to legitimize protests following the presidential election. Taiwan does have an ethnicity problem, but not to the extent that it should be labeled "ethnic division." Nor is it true that the pan-green camp's campaign methods provoked ethnic division. President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait model concerns national recognition and is unrelated to ethnicity, but it has been deliberately used by some politicians to stir up ethnic conflict.
What does identification with Taiwan and the Republic of China (ROC), or with China, have to do with ethnicity? This becomes an ethnic issue only if you consider yourself living in "Taiwan Pro-vince," a Chinese citizen in a country divided by the "one country on each side" model. The number of Hakka voting for Chen also increased significantly, showing that the ethnic problem is improving.
Pan-blue voters also come from different ethnic groups. Are they divided? There is a localization faction in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and the pan-green camp includes an association of Mainlanders for Taiwan independence. This implies that there is no division.
Irrational statements and actions in the wake of the election divide not ethnic groups, but the nation. This is a serious issue.
First, some people in the pan-blue camp do not recognize the legally elected president. People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) has said that Chen is appointing himself president, and former DPP chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) said that KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Soong won. Who is Hsu to say so? A representative of the Central Election Commission? The kingmaker behind Lien and Soong? Or does he represent Beijing in offering them the imperial robe?
Doubting the election results or demanding a recount is fine, but it has to be done according to legal procedures. If an individual can make decisions on this, that or the other, and even decide who will be president, the country is doomed.
Second, some people in the pan-blue camp want to stop the presidential inauguration, accusing Chen of having stolen the nation. Before the recount process has been completed, regular activities should continue as usual. Should all activity cease just because a few people claim that "the nation has been stolen?" Does that invalidate all legisla-tion? Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) recognizes that Chen and Lu were legally elected and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) will follow the law and participate in the inauguration, clearly displaying their understanding of the concept of the rule of law.
The suggestion that Chen and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were illegally elected and that Wang should be made acting president is ridiculous. According to the Constitution, the premier takes over if the president and the vice president are incapable of carrying out their duties.
Third, the groundless accusations of Chen's stealing the nation caused pan-blue Taipei City councilors to take down his picture in the City Council's chamber, as if they had their own head of state. So did some overseas Chinese associations. Who do they recognize as president? If it is Lien, aren't they dividing Taiwan into two nations? Talk of separate rule for the north and south is yet another bid to divide the nation.
These attempts hurt both domestic solidarity and Taiwan's image. The Democratic Progressive Party must take a softer approach and show sincerity in working for ethnic integration and to prevent provocation. Many intelligent people inside the KMT are also trying to block nation-dividing actions. United, these two forces would reveal attempts at national and ethnic division for the people to reject.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS