With the exception of Taiwan, there is no democracy in the world where soldiers would be punished for stressing that they identify with their own country.
Nor is there any other democracy in the world where a parliamentarian would be unhappy because a soldier stresses that they identify with their own country and request a question-and-answer session as a result.
A few days ago, Lieutenant Tsai Yueh-sheng (蔡躍陞) was given two reprimands for expressing his support for Taiwanese independence in a post on Facebook.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lin Yu-fang (林郁方) was unable to tolerate Tsai’s statement and even went so far as to request an interpellation session with the Ministry of National Defense.
No one who is used to the KMT’s colonialist education would find this very strange, but just imagine how ridiculous it would be if the US army did not allow its soldiers to support US independence and if members of the US Congress would hold question-and-answer sessions to criticize US soldiers for promoting US independence.
That just makes it clear how preposterous it is to punish a soldier and hold an interpellation session just because a Taiwanese soldier supports Taiwanese independence.
Taiwanese independence means that Taiwan should be a sovereign and independent democratic state, and not a province of the autocratic People’s Republic of China (PRC). In other words, the one that should be the most unwilling and most opposed to seeing Taiwanese independence should be the authorities in Beijing.
How can it be that instead it is local Hakka son Lin Yu-fang and Taiwan’s army, both of whom are paid by the blood, sweat and tears of Taiwanese taxpayers? Why are they so full of animosity and hatred toward their own people?
Using a tired old cliche, Lin, of course, said: “We do not identify with the People’s Republic of China, we identify with the Republic of China (ROC).”
Really? Then why did Lin not protest loudly when a group of senior retired ROC officers traveled to China, where they wined and dined with the People’s Liberation Army, and made statements such as “both the KMT army and the communist army are Chinese armies?”
And why did he not speak up when retired general and former director of the Department of General Political Warfare Hsu Li-nung (許歷農), who has pledged to “eliminate the communist bandits, take revenge and restore the nation,” traveled to Beijing, where he praised the PRC and said that it was outshining both the Han and the Tang dynasties?
After former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) sustained one of his two presidential election losses, he traveled to Beijing to deliver his surrender.
Once in Beijing, he delivered a lecture at Beijing University in which he derided Taiwanese independence and said loudly: “We must identify with this country,” earning cheers and applause of everyone in the auditorium.
Where was Lin then?
And why does he not say anything when the ROC flag is removed every time a low-level PRC official visits Taiwan?
The ROC, which fled to Taiwan in defeat in 1949, was not defeated by Taiwan, it was defeated by the PRC. If the ROC could take root in the local soil, it would be compatible with Taiwan.
The fact is that the Taiwanese independence discourse does not make a clean cut with the ROC, and it is beginning to interpret the ROC from a local standpoint.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) talked about the ROC on Taiwan, and views like the idea that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, and its name is the Republic of China are beginning to be heard from the Democratic Progressive Party. Although this is controversial, there are pragmatic attempts at reducing opposition.
Let us look at another example.
At a morning gathering at an elementary school somewhere in Pingtung County during “Patriotic Week,” a teacher told all gathered students: “We love our country, what is the name of our country?” and all the students answered with one voice: “TAIWAN.”
Somewhat taken aback at first, the teacher then answered: “That’s right, we are Taiwan, and we are also called the Republic of China.”
Students in practice identify with Taiwan, while the ROC remains a virtual construct. However, the two should be able to slowly merge, and this is the direction in which pro-localization is moving.
This is unacceptable to Lin, who — disloyal to Taiwan and paying his allegiance to someone else — cannot even measure up to a class of elementary-school students.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a professor at National Taipei University’s Graduate School of Taiwanese Culture.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS