So Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
As the "official" bagman for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Yesterday saw another piece of mendacity from Wang, which cannot go without comment, when he told a group of supporters in Kaohsiung that he would be able to end the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) manipulation of ethnic bias in elections.
The problem with this statement is that it is not the DPP which manipulated ethnic bias but the pan-blue camp. When the KMT arrived here from China it had a simple policy of excluding Taiwanese from power. When it realized that it would have to fill its thinning ranks with some Taiwanese, it adopted the age-old tactic of imperialism from the Romans to the British: divide and rule.
The main opposition to the KMT's monopoly of power came from the Hoklo-speaking gentry, outraged at their exclusion from power on "their" island as well as the iniquities of the land-reform compensation system. The KMT was able to counter Hoklo demands for majority rule by manipulating ethnic difference to its advantage. Basically it intimated to Mainlanders that the Hoklo were ungrateful savages who would push them into the sea should the KMT ever lose power -- an opinion the vast majority retain to this day, hence their post-presidential election trauma.
It also suggested to the Hakka that majority rule meant rule by the Hoklo, which, given three centuries of Hoklo-Hakka rivalry, would likely be detrimental to Hakka interests. Much the same pitch was made to the Aborigines for whom there was little love lost toward Hoklo or Hakka. The KMT's clever strategy was to make the native minorities believe that they would be very much worse off under majority rule, and only the KMT could guarantee some sort of level playing field between the different ethnicities.
Such a strategy gave the KMT a lockhold on between 30 and 35 percent of the electorate, and in communities which, because of their more tightly knit nature, were actually rather more easy to mobilize than the Hoklo themselves, the KMT only needed the support of one in four. This it managed to do by playing the "class" card.
It was central to the alien KMT's ideology, and the cultural indoctrination that succeeded "retrocession" that everything Taiwanese was crass and its own imposed culture was superior. Aspirational Taiwanese were encouraged to identify with the KMT's "metropolitan" and see anything rooted in a specifically Taiwanese identity as backward. Many of them did and do, resulting in wide middle-class Hoklo support for the KMT. It is, of course, false consciousness, in the Marxian sense, but none the less powerful for that.
This KMT strategy worked well in the past and still does, though it is fraying a little at the cuffs. Every election campaign sees the KMT criticize the DPP for ethnic campaigning, not because the DPP has been doing anything of the sort, but really as a message to remind the minority voters of the "threat" majority rule might pose. It's a dirty little tactic, but then the KMT is a dirty little party.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS