It's hard to believe that after his "earnest research of Taiwanese history," Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
In making this postulation, Ma has ignored the link between the KMT and Taiwan that he champions. Long before the KMT's land reform, Lo Fu-hsing (
Lo wasn't the only one thinking of Taiwanese independence during the Japanese occupation. Like Lo, the majority of independence proponents happened to be related to the KMT. At the time, some Taiwanese youths fighting the Japanese in China formed many associations whose mainstream thinking was Taiwanese independence, which is revealed in their proclamations.
For example, the "Shanghai Taiwanese Youth Association" asked for "all gentlemen to help Taiwan toward liberty and independence." The "Taiwan Self-Rule Association" called on people to "help the countrymen from our perished nation with Taiwan's sovereignty and independence movement." The "Xiamen Taiwan Comrades Association" called for "Taiwanese to eliminate hate and remove shame, and to fight for independence." The "Taiwan Democracy Party" advocated "establishing the democratic and independent country of Taiwan." The Taiwanese Communist Party also drew up a party platform including "establishing a democratic Taiwanese republic."
At that time, Taiwanese independence ideology was shared by Taiwanese fighting the Japanese in China as well as the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). For example, following the Wushe Incident, in which Taiwanese Aborigines were massacred by Japanese troops, the CCP's Red Flag Daily called for "establishing a Taiwanese soviet republic."
Meanwhile, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) said in a KMT meeting in 1938 that "His [Sun Yat-sen's (孫逸仙)] meaning was that we must make it so that our Korean and Taiwanese compatriots can restore independence and freedom."
From these records, we see that not only is Ma's Taiwanese history rusty, but also his understanding of KMT history -- assuming he is a gentlemen and is not deliberately distorting history.
Ma says that many of the early post-war independence leaders were land owners who benefited under the Japanese occupation, and therefore minimizing land reform was their core reason for apologetically promoting Taiwanese independence.
But a considerable number of the independence youths who fought the Japanese alongside the KMT and Chinese came from land-owning families. Meanwhile in Taiwan, it was the land-owning class that guided efforts to resist Japan by writing, promoting the establishment of a parliament and forming cultural associations.
The leaders of the fierce armed resistance in the south were also land owners. The anti-Japanese farmers and workers' movement led by the non-land-owning class appeared after Japan had already promoted industrialization in Taiwan. Even two of the three large revolts against the Qing Dynasty were lead by wealthy farmers: Lin Shuang-wen (林爽文) in 1786 and Tai Chao-chun (戴潮春) in 1862.
The reason why land owners always played an important role in these movements is a simple question of political and social history. Taiwan was always an agricultural society at the time. And so even though opposition to discriminatory foreign rule was the common position of the majority of people, they were naturally led by the land-owning class.
If Taiwanese independence had its origins only in land owners' opposition to land reform, then once they had ceased to lead the economy, then shouldn't Taiwanese independence have lost support and vanished? The reality is the opposite. Taiwanese independence ideology flourished with Taiwan's urbanization and industrialization, and following the rise of the middle class in the 1970s, lawyers, doctors and professors took on the leading role.
Blinded in some areas by ideology, some people think Taiwanese independence must have some evil origin. Therefore they find the evil land owners to be their straw men. This is certainly a rough and ignorant treatment of Taiwan's political and social history. It's difficult to believe that mild and scholarly Ma also accepts this.
The real source of Taiwanese independence is the drive to be master of one's own house, which is a universal part of human nature. Different stages of history have different leaders.
The earliest sprout was in fact the Cheng dynasty, the first rulers to expel the Dutch East India Company. When they sued for peace from the Qing empire as a separate offshore country, we can already see the emergence of a Taiwanese independence ideology in an Asian version of Western sovereignty, even before the theory of nation-state sovereignty was fully understood outside the West.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Marc Langer
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath