Over eight years of government, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was again and again accused of trying to get rid of Chinese influence — of “de-Sinicization.”
Unfortunately, the DPP government did not dare to meet these criticisms head on. The question should have been — and should be — what is wrong with de-Sinicizing?
The DPP government replaced the word “China” with “Taiwan” in the names of various institutions and companies.
But changing the name of the post office from “Chunghwa [China] Post” to “Taiwan Post,” for example, could hardly be described as de-Sinicization.
On the contrary, such adjustments could be seen as a return to Chinese cultural values.
Confucius (孔子) himself said that “When names are not correct, what is said will not sound reasonable” (名不正則言不順).
Changing the title of the post office and other Taiwanese agencies and companies was, therefore, a return to the fine principles of Confucian philosophy, even if it was a departure from an uglier aspect of Chinese culture — saying one thing but doing another.
Therefore these are hardly grounds for accusing the DPP of de-Sinicization.
CRITICISMS
From another point of view, however, the DPP government should have proudly accepted the criticisms that were leveled at it, declaring: “Yes, we are de-Sinicizing.”
Think about it.
Is democracy a Chinese invention?
Are human rights a prominent feature of Chinese culture?
The DPP is devoted to promoting democracy and protecting human rights. And given that neither of these concepts originated in China, is upholding them not a form of de-Sinicization?
All in all, insufficiently de-Sinicizing is precisely where the DPP went wrong.
If, when praying to the Kitchen God, Taiwanese say that they must offer him something sweet so that he will put in a good word for them in Heaven, what is that if not a continuation of the Chinese tradition of bribery?
If Taiwanese believe that we have to worship the spirits of the departed lest the ghosts be displeased and make trouble, is that not a lesson in the Chinese tradition of bowing down before bullies and thugs?
DREGS
If we Taiwanese don’t comb through our culture and get rid of the dregs of Chinese culture that remain in our hearts and minds, how can we possibly hope to emerge as winners in the “total war” between pro-China and pro-Taiwan social forces?
As the English poet John Dunne said of the revolution in scientific thought that emerged in 17th century Europe, “a new philosophy calls all in doubt.”
The New Culture Movement in early 20th century China also called for the “reassessment of all values.” Likewise, we need to develop a new view of the world — a new weltanschauung.
I once compared the New Culture Movement to the cathartic Sturm und Drang movement of 19th century Germany.
Now that Taiwan has achieved the necessary conditions in terms of its nationhood, perhaps what we need is something like the kulturkampf (cultural struggle) by which Bismarck’s Germany fought to shake off the conservative influence of the Catholic Church.
That is what Taiwan needs now — a clean break.
Chen Chun-kai is an adviser to Taiwan Thinktank and a professor of history at Fujen Catholic University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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