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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS