Last year’s Sunflower movement was followed by a new political culture introduced by Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), and now some of the nation’s hallowed religious culture is being questioned through a direct challenge to the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation.
Taiwan’s democratic politics must depend on a democratic culture. Last year’s peaceful revolution brought only superficial democracy, which means that it can easily be reversed, especially in the absence of transitional justice. In addition, China’s dictatorial ways pose a major threat to Taiwan’s democracy, and the party-state comprador culture and the religious industry — which has attached itself to government power — are playing along with China.
Hopefully, Taiwan will establish a culture that prioritizes the individual’s right to speak up on independence.
On Feb. 17, Hong Kong’s government issued an internal document titled: On the correct use of language, instructing government departments to use the phrase “relations between the interior and Hong Kong” and avoid the phrase “China-Hong Kong relations,” which implies that Hong Kong is independent of China.
On Feb 7, 2011, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) announced that the government would use the phrases “the other side” or “the mainland,” rather than China, with the objective of avoiding the issue of Taiwan’s independence and sovereignty.
It seems Ma is even more colonial than the colonial Hong Kong government.
The right to speak about Taiwanese identity is an issue that I have been paying attention to for many years: I say “China” instead of “the mainland”; putonghua (the common language, 普通話) instead of kuoyu (the national language, 國語); and I also do not say “Beijing language,” since that refers to Beijing’s local dialect. I also speak Taiwanese (also known as Hoklo) instead of minnanyu (閩南語) and I do not say “Taiwan province.” Since fall last year, I have also done my best to avoid the phrase liang an (兩岸), literally “the two shores” [of the Taiwan Strait] to avoid using China’s terminology.
The 1972 Shanghai Communique contains the sentence: “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”
I have said before that this is the Chinese view, and not the Taiwanese understanding. Even if it were the view of the Chinese at the time, “the two sides of the Taiwan Strait” were both ruled by dictatorships, so there was no true public opinion.
The US used the phrase “the two sides of the Taiwan Strait,” and as we are protected by cooperation and a security treaty between the US and Japan, we should use the phrase “the two sides” to comply with the view that Taiwan and China are two nations, which is more in line with the view of Taiwan as an independent entity.
The Democratic Progressive Party has begun mixing up the two, and the same is true about its use of “China” and “the mainland.” The US recognizes “China,” and not “the mainland,” and although it does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it does recognize its existence as “an entity.”
Taiwanese activist Reverend William Luo (羅榮光) suggested that March 18 be commemorated as “Taiwan Youth Day.” I am strongly in favor of this suggestion, as it is a demonstration of the identity of Taiwanese youth and the best way to commemorate the day the Sunflower movement began its occupation of the Legislative Yuan.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS