“Natural independence” is a term often used to describe young Taiwanese, particularly those born after the lifting of martial law in 1987, who harbor a strong Taiwanese national identity.
The term was coined by former Democratic Progressive Party legislator Lin Cho-shui (林濁水), who, in a series of articles published in 2014 titled “The Natural Independence of the Younger Generation,” said that unlike elderly Taiwanese who formed their ideas of independence after an intellectual struggle against the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) China-centric brainwashing, young people are growing up in a democracy and have naturally come to identify themselves with Taiwan.
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Ma Xiaoguang (馬曉光) on April 25 said that there is no such thing as “natural independence” in Taiwan, only “artificial independence,” as he reiterated his office’s stance that people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait “belong to the same Chinese ethnic group.”
While China might in public refuse to acknowledge the existence of Taiwan’s naturally independent generation, it must surely have taken notice of the trend, particularly in the wake of the 2014 Sunflower movement, during which young people swarmed the streets in a show of resistance against China-leaning and surreptitious policymaking.
Beijing has since recalibrated its “united front” tactics to emphasize engagement with what it calls the “three middles and the youth” — residents of central and southern Taiwan, middle and low-income families, small and medium-sized enterprises, and young people — and the “one generation and one stratum” — the younger generation and ordinary Taiwanese.
However, it appears that Beijing has decided to nip the problem in the bud by attempting to stop Taiwan’s youngest generations from also becoming naturally independent, and therefore developing into a mainstream force.
How does Beijing spread its “one ethnic group” concept and pro-unification stance to Taiwanese children? Simple: by engaging teachers at elementary and junior-high schools.
Taiwanese teachers and students have made a number of high-profile visits to China, including a delegation led by then-Secondary and Elementary-School Principals Association of the Republic of China director-general Weng Ching-tsai (翁慶才) to Beijing late last year, shortly after the Chinese Communist Party concluded its 19th National Congress, as well as various summer youth camps.
Meanwhile, schools in China also send delegations to Taiwan for reciprocal visits, which they use as a pretense to send Chinese officials to Taiwanese elementary-school campuses.
According to media reports, some of the papers written by students after their visits to China included praise for Chinese culture and admiration of China’s economy.
No one is against healthy cross-strait exchanges that help promote mutual understanding and improve Taiwan’s international competitiveness. However, when one party harbors ill political intentions, it is a different story.
Via these frequent engagements with Taiwanese teachers, it is obvious that Beijing wishes to instill “China’s greatness” in Taiwanese children in a bid to further its unification goal.
An element of Beijing’s “united front” tactics involves assimilating Taiwanese teenagers and children into “the Chinese dream” and preventing them from fostering sentiments in favor of Taiwanese independence.
This begs the questions: What are the government’s countermeasures to guard Taiwan’s educational institutions? When will this be declared a national security issue?
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