As Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) and the party’s vice chairmen keep criticizing each other, Acting Chairperson Lin Jung-tzer (林政則) has been criticized by the party’s Central Standing Committee for doing nothing to address the situation.
This is not entirely fair: While he might be afraid to take action within the party, he has turned to the outside world in a brave attempt to prove that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is promoting “cultural Taiwanese independence.”
The evidence he has mentioned for this so-called “cultural Taiwanese independence” is that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and her administration have adopted measures that amount to desinicization, such as removing the previous government’s minor adjustments to high-school curriculum guidelines, as well as references to Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙), Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), Confucius (孔子) and the Yellow Emperor (黃帝).
When looking at what he calls evidence of desinicization, retracting the high-school curriculum guideline changes is a matter of removing mistakes and honoring the facts.
Removing references to the Yellow Emperor is a matter of removing deification, and Lin’s complaints about the removal of references to Sun, Chiang and Confucius only show that he does not understand the virtue of keeping uninformed opinions to himself.
The KMT continues to boast that Sun was a revolutionary leader who ended thousands of years of imperial rule in China, but is that not the same as saying he was the quintessential perpetrator of desinicization?
At times, “Loudmouth Sun” tried to follow the US and the UK, while at other times he preferred the Soviet Union, introducing a policy of cooperation with the USSR and tolerating the Chinese Communist Party. Removing references to Sun is not evidence of desinicization.
Chiang sent troops to suppress the 228 uprising of 1947 and instituted a highly oppressive dictatorship in Taiwan that included the White Terror era. His followers and their descendants built a big temple in his honor, placed Chiang statues everywhere and faced constant protest.
If removing references to Chiang means desinicization, then Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and his cohorts must have been dyed-in-the-wool supporters of desinicization, as they removed any sign of Chiang and were happy to import foreign Marxist-Leninist ideas lock, stock and barrel.
Anyone who has memorized the KMT regime’s textbooks knows that Confucius came from the state of Lu, that he traveled to neighboring states and that he had nothing to do with Taiwan.
In Taiwan, he is worshiped in temples where people burn incense and offer food in his name and he is seen as a symbol of academic freedom.
No protests have ever taken place at a Confucius temple and the DPP has no anti-Confucius policy in place. If removing any references to Confucius is the same as desinicization, then the leaders of China’s May Fourth movement — including former Academia Sinica president Hu Shih (胡適) — and Mao, who led the Cultural Revolution and criticized Confucius, are all guilty of desinicization.
In Taiwan, after World War II, Chiang promoted highly oppressive sinicization, but following democratization, Taiwan has adopted and integrated different cultures, naturally developing its own new format.
If this is the limit of Lin’s knowledge and logic, any pan-blue camp supporter who has read a book or two more than him should feel embarrassed on his behalf.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS