The history of Taiwan has been shaped by successive violent invasions: China’s Qing Dynasty, the empire of Japan and the Republic of China are examples of foreign powers that plundered Taiwan, leaving it damaged and its people scarred.
The passing of time presents an opportunity for yesterday’s “outsiders” to become today’s “insiders.”
However, the desire to find peace and protect one’s home must not be based on the “status quo” of the vested interests of those who forcefully invaded the island.
The Democratic Progressive Party calls itself Taiwan’s first “localist” party. In order to live up to this image, it must restore the process of transitional justice so that those individuals who plundered Taiwan are brought to justice. Most important of all, the natural rights of Taiwan’s Aborigines must be returned to them.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) on Aug. 1 last year delivered an official apology to Taiwan’s Aborigines on behalf of her government at the Presidential Office Building.
During her speech, Tsai acknowledged that Aborigines are Taiwan’s original inhabitants, with their own language, culture, customs, land and sovereignty rights and that successive political regimes sent military expeditions to plunder their ancestral land, violating their rights and interests in doing so.
Tsai said she hoped to clarify the facts and find reconciliation so that all the peoples of Taiwan can coexist in a peaceful, harmonious and multicultural society. It was a significant step in the right direction.
In the past few years, the dispute surrounding the Council of Indigenous Peoples’ draft bill, “A method for the demarcation of Aboriginal land and tribal realms,” means that the nation has yet to see whether the Tsai administration has the will and resolution to fulfill its campaign promises.
The origin of the dispute centers around two key issues: consultations on the exercise of the right to consent and the definition of traditional Aboriginal territory.
Article 21 of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民族基本法) states that: “When governments or private parties engage in land development, resource utilization, ecology conservation and academic research in indigenous land, tribe and their adjoin-land which owned by governments, they shall consult and obtain consent by indigenous peoples or tribes, even their participation, and share benefits with indigenous people.”
Although the council drafted its bill in accordance with that clause, privately owned land was removed from the definition of traditional Aboriginal territory, which provoked a furious response from Aboriginal communities.
According to the government’s wording, the exercise of the right to consent would violate private property rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and that is why privately owned land was excluded from the definition of traditional Aboriginal territory.
From the point of view of Aborigines, it is an incontrovertible historical fact that they were the first inhabitants of the island and that their traditional land was established before the formation of a state.
State and privately owned land stems from a system of land ownership and property rights that is a product of modern society, and these rights might even include land that was unjustly appropriated.
If the government consents to the transfer of state-owned land, but excludes privately owned land, this would be a new form of exploitation, and it would not help clarify historical facts or be a sincere process of reconciliation.
Not only has Tsai not made good on her promises, some key government officials have even played a lead role in mobilizing opposition to the reconciliation process and tried to stir up fear among the public.
The legitimacy of a localist government is most closely linked to the restoration of historical justice.
As such, it should not pursue a course that will result in the fragmentation of Aborigines’ traditional land based on the public and private ownership model that was established at a later date.
The government should not be propping up the unjust “status quo.”
It needs to communicate better with the public and promote public debate to clarify the definition of traditional land and create legislation or amend existing legislation to implement Aborigines’ right to traditional land.
The Tsai administration must understand that a person’s bond to their nation is directly related to their ability to participate in the construction of country and nation.
In a nation whose systems and structures have historically been built on violence and looting, it is the duty of a genuinely localist government to investigate and rectify any remaining forms of injustice: this includes land.
Although land is a limited resource, a system designed around reciprocity and mutual benefit — and that recognizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of traditional Aboriginal land — is the only way to start building the kind of nation that can truly be called a home by all of its people.
Translated by Edward Jones
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS