Because of China's incessant oppression of Taiwan, a variety of names for the country have emerged -- including Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC), Formosa, Taiwan-Penghu-Kinmen-Matsu and Chinese Taipei. The diversity of the country's names has caused confusion among its own people, not to mention foreigners. Some countries which are not familiar with the complexities of the names are likely to make mistakes and cause embarrassment during a diplomatic trip of Taiwan's -- and China's -- top officials. This chaotic situation has severely damaged the people's national identity.
There is similar confusion about China's name. It has been called "Red China" and "Communist China." But now there is consensus in international society to simply use the name "China." Nevertheless, Taiwan still addresses China in various ways. In the past, the most commonly used name was "Chung Kung," which, strictly speaking, refers to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rather than a national administration. Maybe "Chung Kung" can be better understood as a backward construction of "Communist China," or as a conflation of party and state entity. Also, some people call China the "Chinese mainland," the "mainland," or even the "inland."
Since China insists on its "one China" policy, the name "China" has become its unique designation. As a result, more and more Taiwanese people use the name "China" for the sake of showing respect to the Chinese government. But some Taiwanese people are not only unwilling to make such a concession, but want to fight over the title and legitimacy of "China" -- so they still use "Chung Kung" or "the mainland" although these are not very precise terms.
Apart from connoting the unity of party and state, "Chung Kung" can negatively imply a single "party-state" entity. The character "Kung" (共) has a negative association and its use is avoided in China. Almost no one will accept being labeled as "Chin Kung [affiliating to the CCP]." Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan (
One Chinese media outlet actually called the CCP Central Committee the "mainland central" committee, and it also -- ridiculously -- referred to 1930s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-ruled as "mainland central." These types of names ignore the differences between a political party and a region. Another example is the recent newspaper headline that used the phrase "mainland Fujian Province." If that usage is justified, should there also be a "Taiwan Fujian Province" or "Chinese Taipei Fujian Province?"
Rectifying the name of Taiwan is a process that has constantly been suppressed by China. Of course there are disagreements within Taiwan on this issue, and the US is not particularly understanding of the country's predicament. In these circumstances, Premier Yu Shyi-kun recently suggested the consistent use of "China" to avoid confusion. Shouldn't China accept this friendly gesture? If Chinese people don't recognize their national entity as "China," then what does their "one China" policy stand for? Would the "mainland government," and the "mainland flag" sound better to represent the great "mainland country?"
But the Chinese government is reluctant to accept Taiwan's goodwill on this issue. This is similar to China's response in 1987, when Taiwan lifted martial law. Despite our friendliness, China wasn't grateful. Instead, it continued to emphasize its view that Taiwan is a part of China, and hoped that Taiwan would launch a war against it. When Taiwan did not do this, China began its campaign of military threats. Only a psychologically abnormal government, which doesn't speak for its people and tramples on human rights, is interested in wars and continuously makes war a topic of debate to distract the public. The Chinese government is such a government.
Since Taiwan cannot yet rectify its own name, it must settle for second best and rectify China's name, to clarify the distinction between the two. This not only strengthens national identity, but also makes the world gradually recognize Taiwan.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS