Taiwanese have elected four presidents since the first direct presidential election in 1996: Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in 1996, Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in 2000 and 2004, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in 2008 and 2012 and Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) this year. Apart from Ma, who took a more pro-China approach, all other presidents have understood that Taiwan is a nation.
These directly elected presidents are different from earlier presidents of the Republic of China (ROC), who were elected by the National Assembly (國民大會), which was made up of representatives of China. Politically speaking, it is clear that Taiwan is a new nation that is separate from China.
However, this is not the way things are; the ROC Constitution and the governmental system originate from China, which is governed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — which was exiled from China to Taiwan in 1949 and then became the occupying ruler of Taiwan — has used its China ideology to hijack Taiwan’s national identity. Even after direct presidential elections were introduced, this connection has not been severed. The KMT seems unable to solve the issue, but what about other Taiwanese political parties?
The “Republic of China” is the title that powerful Taiwanese use when they talk to the public, but the international community knows the nation as Taiwan. Confusion over the “ROC” and the “PRC” in terms of national identity causes Taiwanese to get lost in a psychopathology of national dignity and nationality identity crisis. It also confuses many entrepreneurs, intellectuals and politicians.
We are clearly Taiwanese, and our nation is clearly known as Taiwan internationally. When we travel to other countries, we are still Taiwanese, but what is the name of our nation? Our own government reluctantly sometimes calls itself the “Republic of China (Taiwan),” but when participating in international events or games, it is called “Chinese Taipei,” with “China” and “Chinese” rigidly tied to “Taipei” — a reduced and belittled Taiwan. Is Taiwan really the same thing as Taipei?
Although Taiwanese can directly elect a president, the China problem has not been resolved. Since 1949, the KMT would rather lose the nation than lose a title. Even worse, in Taiwan, the ideological view that the nation’s name is the “Republic of China” continues to push the nation toward China, and this only serves to support the PRC’s ambition to annex Taiwan. As time passes, this long-standing problem has become a habit and Taiwanese have settled into the “status quo,” creating a deadlock that the nation’s directly elected presidents have been unable to break.
This is the national status: an unclear and vague title, and it is the character of Taiwanese — being unable to say what nation they are citizens of. If Taiwanese cannot resolve this problem, should it be left to other nations to resolve? With an emerging conflict between the US and China, Taiwan also comes in the media spotlight. Is Taiwan voluntarily settling for a humiliating survival in this unclear “status quo”? Perhaps not.
Will we stand up and face our true self?
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US