A few days ago, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) wrote in the Chinese-language China Times that Taiwan must reinterpret “localization” as a concept of tolerance to allow all people, both older and newer immigrants, to enjoy Taiwan regardless of ethnicity, and that this is the only way to create social cohesion.
The DPP has had a progressive discourse on ethnic issues, though this changes at election time. After the assassination attempt on former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) in 2004, tensions reached boiling point and on Sept. 27 that year, the DPP passed a resolution on ethnicity and national unity at a party meeting. The Cabinet held a meeting to transfer the spirit of the resolution to its policies.
The resolution stressed forward-looking concepts such as reconciliation, forgiveness, tolerance and diversity. The cross-ministerial implementation was evidence of their efforts, but it was eventually undermined by power struggles within the DPP.
Unfortunately, the resolution’s main proponents later resorted to exclusionary “localization” language to obtain political support from key figures, and they manipulated the DPP’s party election mechanism. The result was that party members viewed as conciliatory were driven out of the party, and this became a main factor in the DPP’s dismal loss in subsequent elections.
Tsai, with her gentle and sincere image, faces a real challenge in changing the way her party handles ethnicity. As someone who stood above incendiary language and the ethnic quagmire, Tsai’s sincerity should earn her the trust and hope of many, but the question is if she really has the ability and the resolve to extricate the DPP from the issue.
The incident surrounding Toronto-based diplomat Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英) suggests some pan-green camp members would extend this isolated case by making sweeping claims to gain votes in today’s Da-an District (大安) by-election in Taipei City. Perhaps Tsai’s comments will be an opportunity for the DPP to start over again. I hope a more tolerant view of localization will help the DPP develop new policies and nominate suitable candidates.
However, eliminating the ethnic issue is not just about politics and policy. The Kuo incident caused such a strong reaction because it touched on discrimination and loyalty. Under Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule, Mainlanders were concentrated in specific professional positions and some systems were to a certain extent designed to oppress particular groups. Relations between groups are quite harmonious for now, but any electoral conflict or large identity dispute still causes standoffs and distrust; we even see defamation and attacks based on stereotypes.
The road to reconciliation involves more than resolution of political divisions. I hope acceptance and dialogue will offer a chance to rediscover experiences and sentiments that help form an identity. We should try to see things as ordinary citizens and incorporate incidents and memories suppressed by ethnic policies. We should try to show feelings toward and recognition of fellow citizens and avoid cultivating suspicions or making judgments based on preconceptions. Individuals and groups must stop using the media and ethnically defined politics to oppress others.
This year is the 60th anniversary of the KMT’s relocation to Taiwan and a lot of discussion and remembrance will take place. The only way to establish mutual understanding and a more tolerant civil society is to link each individual to history and engage in deeper thought on war and conflict.
We cannot assume that politicians will achieve these complex and lofty goals by making speeches; we must all take responsibility.
Huang Luo-feei is president of the Association for Mainlander Taiwanese.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS