Positioning himself as the son of Taiwan, President Chen Shui-bian (
With his recent, unusual acknowledgement of Taiwan's cultural kinship with China, Chen has appealed for a flexible concept of a new Taiwanese identity. Claiming that Taiwanization is not a simple equivalent of de-Sinicization, Chen makes the sophisticated argument that the nation must forge a new identity by incorporating the past rather than flinging it into oblivion.
According to Chen's reasoning, memorializing the historic scars of the 228 Incident is more a pledge of ethnic equality than a belated accusation of Mainlanders. Quite the opposite, the concept of the New Taiwanese that Chen promotes defines its mem-bers not by their ascribed identity, such as ethnic background, but by their self-achieved identity.
In a democratic country like this one, the freedom to identity oneself with a cultural tradition or political body should be a natural right regardless of birthplace or language. One might not be born here, but one can make oneself a Taiwanese through self-determination.
The idea of being Taiwanese has not had an unchanging essence through history. The latest example is that children of interethnic or interracial couples abound in our society. A recent survey conducted by Common-wealth magazine shows that one in eight newborns has a non-native mother. If these children grow up in Taiwan, they are entitled to nationality regardless of their maternal ancestry.
To look further back, "Tai-wanese" as an identity category has had very different meanings in at different times -- in Aboriginal history, Han immigrant history, under the Japanese colonial regime and during Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) totalitarianism. The task we face today is to break the rigid binary opposition of Mainlanders versus Taiwanese locals and to enrich the New Taiwanese identity category, an identity with cultural differences and ethnic diversity.
One subtle point, however, needs to be made clear: A sense of identification is rooted in multiple layers of soil. To identify with democracy doesn't mean having to make a clear-cut break from 2,000 years of Chinese culture. Emotional and cultural identification with China can coexist with political identification with Taiwan. Far from damaging Taiwanese awareness, such a pluralistic identification demonstrates the liberty of Taiwan's democracy and the flexibility of the concept of being "Taiwanese."
While multiculturalism is shaping our society and internalization has diminished our insularity, we must decry politicians who gain political capital from ethnic confrontation, and be wary of them.
Reacting to Chen's remarks that an independently existing Taiwan was not equivalent to de-Sinicization, the China Daily called him a "reckless, tightrope-walking `president.'"
Chen was quoted as saying, "From the perspective of state dignity and sovereignty equity, Taiwan is not a part of China. But the other way round, from the perspectives of history, blood relationship and culture, China and Chinese culture indeed are a part of Taiwan."
Wang Hsiao-wen is a freelance writer.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers