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
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS