In the past, every time the pan-blue camp or mainstream discourse came upon the question of independence, the typical response was to insist that it was unethical for separatists to manipulate issues of ethnicity. The assumption behind the ethnicity argument is that Mainlanders are pro-unification whereas ethnic Taiwanese are separatists. This perspective has become a static preconception in Taiwanese society.
There have been Mainlanders in the past such as Lei Chen (
Therefore, in the past, being pro-independence could almost always be equated with being ethnic Taiwanese. But with democratization, the liberating of society from political propaganda and growing attachment to the land from living in Taiwan, the situation no longer follows the stereotype.
Recently, a poll conducted by the Shanshui Public Opinion Research Co found that 76.1 percent of respondents believe that Taiwanese sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan to the exclusion of the 1.4 billion people of China; 15 percent believed the the 1.4 billion people of China also have a say.
The 15 percent who believe that Taiwanese sovereignty is shared with China, according to stereotypical conception, should be Mainlanders. As Mainlanders make up around 12 percent of Taiwan's population, the figures seem to match up.
But according to the polling company's cross analysis, this preconception is far from correct.
In fact, 70.5 percent of Mainlanders believe that Taiwanese sovereignty belongs to Taiwan's 23 million, while only barely one quarter, 24.7 percent, of Mainlanders believe that Taiwanese sovereignty belongs to China's 1.4 billion.
If these figures are used to calculate population, the results show that 570,000 Mainlanders believe that sovereignty belongs to China's 1.4 billion. Based on the figures then, after excluding other ethnic groups, the survey shows there are 2,650,000 ethnic Taiwanese who support the same view. The stunning result is that the pro-unification group is made up of more ethnic Taiwanese than Mainlanders.
To see 76.1 percent in support of sovereignty belonging to Taiwan's 23 million and to see that the majority of Mainlanders have arrived at the same conviction is a complete reversal of stereotypical expectations. We are of course happy to see independence become mainstream, but we are happier to see the independence issue disassociated from ethnicity.
The disassociation of separatism from ethnic status demonstrates that the pan-blue camp's previous stand that discussing independence or unification would intensify ethnic conflict is now wholly inapplicable. Moreover, whether ethnic Taiwanese or Mainlander, the fact that the percentage of Taiwanese supporting independence has grown from 10 percent as was the case in the 1990s to 76.1 percent now is surely the result of persistent public dialogue.
The dialogue process was of course difficult, and for many, even painful. But the result of it is that the national consciousness is gradually solidifying.
In a time when national consciousness is consolidating regardless of ethnicity, there are still those in both the ruling and opposition parties who sensationalize issues by connecting independence with ethnicity.
Such conduct is not only wrong, but also counterproductive and shortsighted given the direction of the development of Taiwanese consciousness over the past 10 years. In the long term, this approach creates no advantages whatsoever for any political party, let alone for the development of the country.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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