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
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS