Former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) — father of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連勝文) — showed his lack of understanding of Taiwan’s history and lack of sympathy for the Taiwanese who lived through the Japanese colonial period by calling independent mayoral candidate Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) father and grandfather “traitors” because they were educated under the Japanese educational system and once adopted a Japanese surname.
Lien Chan made the remarks during a campaign rally for his son on Sunday. He said that Ko has been raised in a family that received a Japanese colonial education, with his grandfather even adopting the Japanese surname Aoyama, and therefore Ko’s loyalty to the Republic of China was in question. A person from a family of “traitors” should not be elected as mayor of the capital, he said.
The remarks are astonishing not only because they express so much hatred, but also because they show so much ignorance of Taiwan’s history.
First, as the island was under Japanese colonial rule from 1895 to 1945, it is inevitable that the vast majority of Taiwanese — about 90 percent — would have fathers, grandfathers or great-grandfathers who went to school under the colonial education system. These include many of the leading figures in the movement against Japanese colonial rule that are praised by the KMT government as “national heroes.” So was Lien Chan implying that the majority of Taiwanese are unfit to be elected officials?
Moreover, many Taiwanese took Japanese surnames because the colonial government introduced a policy in 1940 to “encourage” them to adopt a Japanese name and lifestyle.
Incentives for adopting Japanese names included better education and job opportunities, and more food rations and other necessities during wartime, when resources were scarce. The colonial government also had many ways other than incentives to pressure or force Taiwanese to take Japanese names.
Certainly, those who resisted the pressure and the temptation should be lauded, but is it fair to blame those who changed their surnames under pressure or to ensure the survival of their families during wartime?
If Lien Chan truly believes that it was a sin to adopt a Japanese name, why did he not protest or resign when serving under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), since Lee adopted a Japanese name, Masao Iwasato, during the Japanese colonial period?
If Lien Chan sincerely believes it is wrong to adopt foreign names under pressure, does he feel the slightest bit guilty about or would he apologize for the KMT policy that forced all Aborigines in Taiwan to adopt Chinese names?
While Sean Lien repeatedly said that it was unethical to criticize the family of a rival during an election, Lien Chan does not appear to share the same compunction.
If Lien Chan insists that it is important to consider the actions of a candidate’s grandfather, maybe he would care to explain why his grandfather, Lien Heng (連橫), once penned a poem in praise of then-Japanese governor Gentaro Kodama’s visit to Tainan in 1899, and then an article promoting the benefits of smoking opium in a pro-Japanese newspaper in 1930 at a time when the Japanese colonial government was pushing for a policy to issue special permits for opium smokers?
No, we did not think so.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS