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
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS