Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was asked during a Taipei City Council meeting whether he is Chinese or Taiwanese. He stammered and found it difficult to articulate his position, but eventually suggested that, while culturally he is Chinese, he is Taiwanese politically speaking.
That really is absurd. How can Ko be considered qualified to be the mayor of Taiwan’s capital if he is so afraid of saying out loud that he is Taiwanese?
His acceptance of Taiwanese values and his concept of national identity are utterly confused. He cannot seem to see straight on this issue.
Ko was, of course, being asked about his national identity, not his cultural identity. If you ask Americans, Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders the same question, regarding their national identity, they would reply that they are Americans, Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders.
Nobody would expect them to answer that they were British, irrespective of how much they approved of British culture, the political culture in the UK or the system that country adheres to.
The most ridiculous thing about Ko’s response is how it betrays his utter confusion about the difference between national identity and cultural identity, not to mention historical reality or the way of things.
You cannot try to force Taiwanese culture into the mould of Chinese culture, or attempt to equate the two. The concept is inherently wrong.
Other Asian nations, such as North and South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Vietnam have Chinese cultural elements, or have been affected by the legacy of their contact with imperial China. Regardless, they have long broken such links with Chinese culture and over the years have developed their own unique cultural systems.
Taiwan, having gone through 500 years of colonial rule and experienced Eastern and Western cultural influence, just as the aforementioned Asian countries have, has grown apart from China and has its own unique culture.
Taiwanese culture is Taiwanese culture, not Chinese culture. Taiwanese values are the collective values of Taiwanese: they are not Chinese values.
China’s authoritarian culture of 2,000 years, set against freedom, democracy and human rights, is entrenched in that society.
China has undergone 40 years of reform and the opening up of its markets, and state capitalism has made China prosperous, yet Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has still been able to buck that trend, and managed to oppose and resist the universal values of civilized development.
In amending the Chinese constitution to abolish term limits, Xi has put this civilized development into reverse and essentially restored the imperial line, with himself at the head, as emperor.
Dictatorial Chinese culture like this has nothing in common with the liberal and democratic culture of Taiwan.
Ko’s confused cultural identity and national identity — whether it is out of his innocence and incompetence, or done to please the voters of Taipei — is a big mistake.
This is about the ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy, so there is no room for ambiguity or compromise.
In November’s Taipei mayoral election, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) should not be allowed to yield to Ko anymore and should nominate a Democratic Progressive Party candidate to compete with him for the position.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a professor at the University of Queensland, Australia.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
RSS