Defining Taiwanese identity
I always read Jerome Keating’s articles with much interest and delight due to his knowledge, well-argued style and a dose of humor.
For once, allow me to react to his last article (“China’s slim chance for democracy,” Jan. 9, page 8).
I understand Keating’s fondness for Taiwan, as I myself could easily lean toward sympathy for its people.
Therefore, I would like to add that the propaganda slogan in China “to get rich is glorious” is also without a doubt a philosophy well anchored in society’s mind here, where a blatant propensity for greed does not seem to be a sin.
Taiwan also has its load of nouveau riche, whose behavior does not differ much from that of their compatriots on the other side of the Strait.
On the other hand, whether Chinese people in Taiwan kept their soul and still abide by the Confucius principles is another interesting debate if we do not limit Confucianism to filial piety.
Sadly, with all due respect to the people living in Taiwan, I do not see much evidence that people put into practice in their daily lives the major principles of Confucius’ doctrine “discipline-order-respect.”
At the end of Keating’s article, Taiwanese identity is mentioned, as opposed to Chinese identity, I assume.
It appears to be a very recurrent term nowadays used in the press or elsewhere, but is the meaning not a bit tarnished?
What exactly is the criteria used to define a people’s identity?
Race? Language? Geography? History? Religion? Culture? Customs? Eating habits?
In all these aspects, nothing seems to drastically differentiate the Chinese people on both sides of the Strait enough so that we could speak about two distinct identities.
Exception is given to the Aborigines, of course.
As a result, foreigners in general do not really observe many differences in terms of identity between the Chinese descendants who are now inhabitants of Taiwan and the Chinese people living in China.
It is also worth mentioning the confusion for Westerners as Taiwan still uses the name “Republic of China” in all official documents and participates in some international events with the title “Chinese Taipei.”
People in Taiwan are blessed. They have been given freedom without a single battle after years of an oppressive dictatorship.
They can now heedlessly enjoy their fortune with sometimes too much tendency to mix up democracy with permissiveness.
Does that new regime and liberty make the Chinese people living in Taiwan very different or unique from those on the continent?
Has Taiwan’s president not used the term zhonghua minzu (中華民族) to refer to the people on both sides of the Strait?
Finally, who can really claim to represent the so-called Taiwanese identity except the Aborigines?
The descendants of Chinese immigrants from Fujian?
The Hakka community?
The mainland Chinese nationalists who arrived in 1949?
From what we see and hear nowadays in the local news, the more the people lull themselves into believing the illusion of a specific identity as opposed to the Chinese one, the more they embrace China at the same time, after electing for a second term a president who has never concealed his intentions regarding an aggressive China that is more eager than ever to close the reunification chapter.
In the meantime, thousands of local Taiwanese residents (businessmen, investors, scholars, retired high-ranking army officers, etc) whose loyalty goes where the money is did not wait long to rush to the other side.
This debate about a so-called identity is far beyond their concerns.
“After all, we are Chinese,” as they always say eventually.
Alexi Sanders
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry