A good period of time has elapsed since a legislator or party official complained about his or her enemies playing the "ethnic card" for political gain. What this comfortable lull in the increasingly contrived ethnicity debate highlights is that the issue is repulsive to the great majority of people. And for good reason: the bulk of things the average person worries about can no longer be framed in simple ethnic terms.
The erosion of ethnicity as a weapon is a remarkable thing given the pervasive discrimination against non-Mainlanders on the basis of their ethnicity by previous Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) governments. And it remains the case that the military, academic, educational and the other public service sectors carry a deep imprint of ethnic stacking that buttressed KMT rule for so many years.
The inner sanctum of the KMT may still be disproportionately of Mainlander origin, but this is of significance now only if this group of men and women discriminate in policy terms against Taiwanese of non-Mainlander ethnicity. This is because the majority of KMT support is ethnic Taiwanese. A reliance on the Mainlander vote -- and conspicuous contempt toward ethnic Taiwanese -- would crucify the party, a fact that the Democratic Progressive Party has not worked hard enough to understand.
Whatever the explanation for the general lack of enthusiasm shown by Taiwanese for mobilizing along ethnic lines -- colonial residue, economic disincentives -- the fact remains that Taiwanese politicians and activists looking to make hay must focus increasingly on matters of common interest.
The most common interests at present are economic and military, though for ordinary people the former is more compelling and has greater currency at election time. The Chen administration has failed most spectacularly in turning this fact to its advantage, neglecting to promote Taiwan's economic successes and concentrating its campaign armory on dead-in-the-water defense initiatives and humdrum nation-building symbolism.
However, there is another common interest, though few care to speak of it: cross-ethnic national culture. Though differences in language and sensibility may mark one ethnic group from another, there is undoubtedly a common Taiwaneseness that is emerging and that can transcend explicit identification with either a "unified" China, an independent Taiwan or a Taiwan that is in sovereign limbo.
It is this common culture that hardliners on both sides of the unification-independence spectrum do their best to deny and undermine. But it is this very thing -- a sense of polity and common good -- that will eventually force Beijing to concede its mission of annexation must change radically if it is to amount to anything more than the prospect of an open-ended, brutal occupation. In China, provincialism (in the sense of identifying with one's province) is remarkably weak, particularly compared to the federalism of the US and many European states. China's conception of Taiwan as another province therefore can only divorce itself more and more from reality as time progresses.
It is said that former dictator Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) called himself a Taiwanese on his deathbed. Yet to this day many Mainlanders (and some ethnic Taiwanese) continue to harbor suspicion toward associating one's nationality with this island and the few other smaller islands that make up our home. These days, this fear is not of the concept so much as the people who are attempting to (often clumsily) champion it.
To which we say: Open your eyes, stand tall and be free of fear. This is everyone's home. All that matters is that it be protected from those who would harm it. And those enemies belong not to any ethnic group within but to another government that terrifies its own people to stay in power.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength