Chiang Wei-shui (蔣渭水) was one of the main leaders of Taiwan’s nationalist movement during Japanese colonial rule. The Democratic Progressive Party reveres him for his determined resistance against a foreign power, while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) respects him for his stalwart nationalism.
Chiang was a medical doctor, as is Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who insists on naming the new party that he formally established on Monday the Taiwan People’s Party (台灣民眾黨) — the same name as the party Chiang founded in 1927.
This shows that Ko thinks of himself as Chiang’s successor.
The background to the founding of the Japanese-era Taiwan People’s Party was a split between right and left-wing factions of the Taiwan Cultural Association, which Chiang founded in 1921.
After the proletarian youth faction of Lien Wen-ching (連溫卿), Wang Min-chuan (王敏川) and others seized control of the Taiwan Cultural Association, some of the association’s original officials, including Lin Hsien-tang (林獻堂) and Chiang, were unhappy about the direction it was taking, so they started afresh by establishing the Taiwan People’s Party.
However, struggles between different political lines did not end there. In 1930, a faction around Tsai Pei-huo (蔡培火) broke away and established the Taiwan Local Autonomy League.
The next year, the Japanese governor-general’s office forcibly dissolved the Taiwan People’s Party because it had adopted a left-wing program.
In his book Taiwan’s 400-Year History (台灣人四百年史), Su Beng (史明) critically examines the national liberation movement led by Chiang and others, and identifies two obvious mistakes made by its leaders.
First, they confused the practical psychological orientation of Taiwan’s society and people, i.e. Taiwanese consciousness, with the abstract concepts about the “Chinese motherland” and “China’s Taiwan” that they imagined in their own heads, with the result that they unwittingly engaged in the Taiwanese national liberation movement based on the imaginary concept of a “Chinese motherland.”
To put it in today’s terms, they did not truly recognize the national differences between Taiwanese and Chinese.
On the contrary, they had a great deal to say about Taiwanese and Chinese all being ethnic Han.
Second, with regard to strategy, the Taiwanese revolution at that time was a “national revolution” against colonialism.
At that stage, the basic strategy should have been one of a “Taiwanese national united front” of various social classes working together in a struggle against a foreign occupying force.
However, the petty bourgeois intellectuals got stuck at the stage of street propaganda instead of going forward to unite property-owning and non-property-owning elements of the Taiwanese public to launch a united struggle.
As to the socialist faction, its strategy paid scant attention to the united front and national struggle.
Set against today’s backdrop, the same kind of mistake would be not recognizing the Chinese Communist Party as being the common enemy it is, but instead creating divisions within Taiwanese society over political lines.
These two lessons in Su’s book identify mistakes that were made even by the great Chiang.
Let us hope that Ko will not repeat the mistakes of his forebears.
Handsome Chow is a freelance editor.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under