Hoping to end polarization between the pan-blue and pan-green camps and reverse six years of government running on empty, President Chen Shui-bian (
But we should give more consideration to whether focusing on the issue of independence is in line with public expectations for cross-party and ethnic reconciliation.
The Mainlander Taiwanese Association recently released a survey on ethnic relations carried out in the Taipei area. It showed that 52 percent of respondents believe that Taiwan has a serious ethnic problem, and as many as 80 percent agreed that this problem is generated by politicians furthering the interest of political parties.
So is the ethnic issue a "natural" issue, or the result of manipulation?
The same survey showed that the public is divided over the 228 Incident.
Forty percent believe that discussion of the 228 Incident will increase ethnic tension, while 36 percent believe that discussion facilitates ethnic understanding.
Even non-Mainlanders are split on the issue. It should be noted that 54 percent of those sympathetic to the Democratic Progressive Party and 70 percent of those sympathetic to Taiwan Solidarity Union feel that such discussion facilitates understanding between ethnic groups, while 55 percent of those sympathetic to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party feel that it increases tension.
In other words, while we first thought that the 228 issue was a matter of ethnicity, further analysis shows that it has become a matter of cross-party conflict. That means that various approaches to 228 are decided by party affiliation rather than ethnicity.
The past 10 years of democratization in Taiwan have not hurt the interests of Mainlanders, but others have won few substantive benefits. After the issue developed into a party political matter following the transition of power in 2000, change in the political status of ethnic groups became linked to party affiliation.
Linking ethnic and party interests to each other lets us understand how the 228 Incident has changed from being a matter of soul-searching and understanding into one of cross-party conflict.
The survey also said that 70 percent of respondents felt cross-party reconciliation would facilitate ethnic reconciliation, which suggests that the public also sees a link between ethnicity and political parties. But 80 percent felt that cross-party reconciliation should be approached from a policy standpoint, and not on the basis of the unification-independence debate.
This suggests that the public desires attempts at reconciliation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps in order to avoid controversial political issues.
There is, however, quite some distance between the 10-point consensus reached by Chen and Soong and the public's wish to concentrate on policy.
With ethnicity now a party issue, any question related to party interests could reinforce conflict between ethnic groups. Is it a good thing that cross-party reconciliation begins from a unification-independence perspective and that these issues are directly connected to the parties and their electoral interests? This is a question that should be considered in some detail.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at the Academia Sinica. Translated by Perry Svensson
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS