According to recent newspaper reports, some pro-local entrepreneurs and independence activists have asked former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) to run in the 2008 presidential election on a joint ticket with KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who is not "local" enough for them. Obviously, the localization debate will continue in future elections. I, however, deeply disagree with the of pro-localization and non-localization talk that has begun to dominate politics.
I can no longer remember when the term "localization" first become popular. The only thing I am sure of is that it has been the focus in every election in recent years. This has brought with it self-proclaimed pro-localization activists and organizations, although we are never told what their actual contribution to Taiwan is, except that they are always there when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) asks for support.
In the same way, they will always defend the DPP if someone criticizes it. They even condemn longtime DPP allies such as former president Lee Teng-hui (
I believe that this is how most Taiwanese perceive the pro-localization forces. The question is if pro-localization activists need to be so blind and ignorant?
What is the distinction between pro- and non-localization, and what does localization mean, anyway? This should be examined from two aspects. Most people do not distinguish between pan-blue or pan-green, or pro- or non-localization, because most of us were born and raised in Taiwan and will stay here and fight for this land, seeing individual and family as being closely tied to the country.
How can one tell who is pro-localization and who is not? Whether or not a person is born in Taiwan is not the point, nor is the question of whether he or she can speak Taiwanese. Unfortunately, these criteria are often used when trying to answer that question. I believe that people in general make no difference between pro- and non-localization.
The differentiation almost always happens in a political context. I do not think the issue is very complex. Any politician who puts Taiwan's maximum interest at the heart of their value system, and always makes Taiwan their only concern when facing China should be considered to be pro-localization.
For example, everyone who supports the opening of direct links is not necessarily non-localization. If they support the opening for the sake of Taiwan's development, then they are certainly pro-localization. On the other hand, people opposing direct links are not necessarily pro-localization. If they block Taiwan's opportunities and marginalize it internationally out of blind opposition, then how can they claim to be pro-localization?
From this perspective, I believe that, with very few exceptions, all Taiwanese politicians can be said to be pro-localization. So if most politicians are actually pro-localization, why does the issue cause such a sensation in every election? Clearly, it is a result of political manipulation, and this is regrettable. It seems all that can put an end to this phenomenon is a public awakening.
Take me, for example. I am in my early 30s and both my parents were born and raised in Taiwan. I speak Taiwanese fluently. I was born and raised here, too, and I will strive for this land. Taiwan will always be my home. I have voted for both the pan-blue and the pan-green camp, but have I never supported either one blindly and without any reason. Am I pro-localization or not?
Lin Yu-jen is a doctoral student in the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.