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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS