After 1949, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Mainlanders who emigrated from China to Taiwan ruled over the Taiwanese majority. The party maintained power by uniting Mainlanders and isolating them from the Taiwanese who already lived here, separating them into an official class.
This segregation policy adopted by the KMT aimed to divide the Taiwanese people based on a good-bad dichotomy: Those who opposed the KMT were labeled villains, Taiwanese independence activists or even followers of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), while those who chose to cooperate with the KMT were treated as their servants.
The most important tools for implementing this segregation policy were the educational system and the media, which were used to teach the Taiwanese obedience and smear the images of those who opposed the KMT.
With the passage of time, and as a result of social changes, the Mainlanders living in Taiwan have become divided into two groups, "Taiwanese Main-landers" who identify with Taiwan, and "Chinese living in Taiwan" who do not identify with Taiwan. The longstanding policy to create an official class of Mainlanders produced a cultural and political phenomenon unique to the group of Chinese living in Taiwan.
Many people from this group believe they are the natural ruling class of Taiwan. They feel that they are wiser than the Taiwanese people, are an enlightened official class and are the teachers that should reform the Taiwanese people, who naturally should be obedient to their rule.
When former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) passed away, this group of Chinese living in Taiwan lost their ruling position, but having internalized the culture of the official class, they felt a sense of crisis and were unable to adapt to the changes brought by democracy. Unable to maintain face and keep up the false dignity of the official class, they turned to organized cultural villainy.
Through their own privileged media outlets, they have resorted to reporting using double standards, insults and prejudice. While they only spent a few days reporting on the source of Ma's fortune, worth NT$80 million (US$2.45 million), they are offering around-the-clock coverage of the scandal surrounding President Chen Shui-bian's (
When Ma goes jogging every morning he becomes an advocate for exercise for everyman, while Chen's inspection tours of southern Taiwan are construed as dereliction of duty.
Examples of how Taiwanese are insulted and discriminated against in the media abound. This is not enough, however, and they have announced that they will join hands with their old enemy the CCP to speed up the exodus of Taiwanese capital to China and hollow out Taiwan. They are even promoting Taiwanese agricultural exports to China to erode the DPP's stronghold in southern Taiwan.
Their goal is to help China annex Taiwan, whether they are in power or not. To them, Taiwan's democracy is but a symbol of their shameful loss of power. They cannot understand what democracy means to the Chinese people who live under the rule of the CCP. The official class cannot bear that its servants have stood up and wrested power from them. This also explains why pro-China media outlets led by the group of Chinese living in Taiwan are acting with the deadly frenzy of a pack of crazed dogs.
Chang Cheng-shuh is a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS