It is almost a historical irony that former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) have both sparked debate with their — arguably mutually exclusive — attitudes toward the nation’s history with China and Japan from 70 years ago.
While what underlies both historical narratives — underlining Taiwan’s particular connections with the two nations — is an argument belonging to a past era, there are significant differences between their views on the present and future.
Lee and Lien have both brought up “Taiwan” as a community — an article in a Japanese magazine in Lee’s case and Lien’s speech during a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) yesterday.
Lee separated Taiwan’s political existence from that of China, adding that the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution contradicts existing circumstances.
He said he has confidence that younger Taiwanese can “break away from the old and revolutionize politics.”
Lien, on the other hand, upheld a “Taiwanese consciousness” during his meeting in China, portraying it as the spirit of endurance and solidarity Taiwanese have cultivated through 100 years of foreign rule and hardships. However, Taiwanese consciousness “should not be equated to or used for secessionist [calls for] independence,” he said.
Certainly, no argument other than common ancestry is needed for unificationists’ assertion of Chineseness; the war against Japan was an effort by “all Chinese children,” including Taiwanese, Lien said, in an apparent retort to Lee’s comments.
Lien ties not only Taiwan’s past but also its future to China, repeating the hackneyed rhetoric of cross-strait cooperation on trade and market development based on common Chineseness and the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Lee, unlike Lien, does not expect cooperation per se — even if it is with Japan — to boost the economy.
He said the point is innovation and new thinking — citing the example of the Internet of Things — and that it is the younger generation who hold the key.
Taiwan and Japan, Lee said, “have deep bonds,” but probably to his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) detractors’ disappointment, Lee never said that Taiwanese “are” — note the tense — Japanese.
He said he and his brother fought as Japanese for their then-motherland 70 years ago; he did not say that “all Taiwanese” regard Japan as their motherland.
What Lee said was that there was no “war of resistance against Japan” in colonial Taiwan in the sense that there was a country-to-country war taking place in China from 1937 to 1945, not that there was absolutely no “anti-Japanese-rule activities” in Taiwan.
The real problem the KMT has with Lee and his claims does not lie in the historical fact that Taiwan was once part of the Japanese empire. The problem the party has is with disconnecting Taiwan from the ROC, or China’s “war of resistance” rhetoric, and thereby the epic story of a glorious fight against foreign nations as a whole in the name of the Chinese nation that has made the KMT and its ilk hysterical.
Naming Japan as people’s zuguo, (祖國 , or motherland), even adding “70 years ago,” is not acceptable, for, as KMT Legislator Lin Yu-fang (林郁方) said zuguo indicates “where your ancestors lived and Lee’s ancestors came from China’s Fujian Province.”
Lien’s implied point is: “Insofar as Lee’s ancestors came from Fujian, China, his zuguo should be China, which should also be the case with other Taiwanese.”
While nonagenarian Lee, nostalgia over Japanese rule notwithstanding, has no doubt about Taiwanese identity borne from the land and its history, and shared by young people, the KMT, represented by Lien or not, is trapped in a limbo formed by its anachronistic and inconsistent beliefs in an ROC without Taiwan’s locally grown perspectives.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS