If psychological projective tests could be used to examine the collective memory of different ethnic groups, a comparison of the reviews and box office success of the Taiwanese play The Village (寶島一村) in China with the negative reception the Chinese gave to the Taiwanese film Seediq Bale highlights commonalities and differences in the collective memories on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Such a comparison also allows us to examine the reasons for the pronounced opposition between the pan-blue and pan-green camps and suggest how candidates in the Jan. 14 presidential election should handle the issue.
When The Village was performed at the National Theater in Taipei, NT$2,800 only bought a back seat on the right-hand side of the first floor. The play made a very deep impression on me and helped me to better understand the hardships many experienced living in military veteran’s villages in Taiwan. However, when I looked around the theater during the intermission, I noticed that most of the audience were “Mainlanders,” middle-aged and older, of a social and economic standing easily inferred from the expensive tickets. Parts of the plot described how veterans worried about Taiwan’s future, highlighting certain aspects of their collective memory.
In contrast, Seediq Bale describes the Wushe Incident (霧社事件) which took place during the Japanese colonization of Taiwan. Personally, I felt that the movie was something of which the Taiwanese film industry should be immensely proud, in addition to which it depicted a part of history that I knew nothing about.
As the presidential election approaches, the popularity and box office success of Seediq Bale in combination with the experience of Japanese colonization will almost certainly have a political impact on certain voters.
Given that the search for peace is universal, the dispute over the so-called “1992 consensus” is just one more projection of the domestic opposition between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. As the Republic of China Constitution is a “one China” constitution, the inescapable conclusion is that unless it is rewritten, taking the Constitution as a staring point means that opposition to the “1992 consensus” equals opposition to peace across the Taiwan Strait.
However, insistence on this conclusion and a refusal to compromise, thus ignoring the history and reality that underpins the collective memory of Taiwan’s different ethnic groups, is tantamount to telling the public that there can never be a transfer of government power.
That would underestimate the intelligence of Taiwanese voters, and it would also result in claims that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party are collaborating to sell Taiwan down the river.
Efforts to give the public a “friendly” warning to promote one’s election prospects and elevate Taiwan’s domestic standoff to the level of a cross-strait standoff is an old trick that has gradually lost any practical usefulness.
However, national leaders from both the pan-blue and the pan-green camps seem incapable of transcending Taiwan’s domestic opposition. In 2008, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was elected president after defeating his opponent by more than 2 million votes, and his party won almost three-quarters of all legislative seats. He enjoyed the highest vote in the country’s democratic history and began his term as president with high public expectations.
Today, however, Ma is clearly experiencing big problems with his re-election bid. If he and his team looked at the situation from a different perspective, they would be better able to pinpoint where the problem lies.
Ma has asked why it was a sign of concern for Taiwan when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) talked about a cross-strait peace agreement, but a sign of selling out Taiwan when he mentioned it. If he didn’t already know the answer to that question before he asked it, then he has a serious problem with his campaign team.
Such a question can only come from not fully considering the collective memory of the different ethnic groups that make up Taiwan, and it is his inability to understand the nuances in their reasoning that has become the biggest obstacle to his re-election.
Taiwanese are really very fortunate and very rich. We are fortunate because among all Chinese people around the world, Taiwanese are the only ones who can choose their own leaders in direct elections, and that is something to be treasured.
We are also rich because we have different collective memories. Chinese culture and the diversity of ethnic groups should be an asset, not a burden.
Any presidential candidate who wants to win an election must offer positive policies and do his or her best to appeal to the various ethnic groups.
Yang Ching-yao is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of China Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers