Taiwan in Time: Feb. 8 to Feb. 14
If the Japanese hadn’t lost World War II, it is likely that Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) surname would be Aoyama. And former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) would still be officially known as Iwasato Masao.
Photo courtesy of Wikicommons
Historian Shih-shan Henry Tsai (蔡石山) writes in his book, Lee Teng-hui and Taiwan’s Quest for Identity, that Lee’s father was the first one in the family to “Japanize” his name to Iwasato Tatsuo when he served as a policeman.
After the Japanese colonial government announced their policy to allow and encourage Taiwanese to Japanize their names on Feb. 11, 1940 — which was the 2,600th anniversary of the founding of Japan — Lee and his older brother had their names changed too.
“Like other Taiwanese fathers who desired to improve their family’s social and economic conditions, [Lee] decided to take Japanese names for his entire family,” Tsai writes.
This name-change policy was part of the government’s push to Japanize their colonial subjects, a direct result of the country’s imperialist policy that came to a head with its invasion of China in 1937. The goal was to eradicate Taiwanese of their identity and transform them into full Japanese citizens, who, by extension, would be willing to die for the Japanese emperor in battle (about 30,000 Taiwanese died as Japanese soldiers during World War II).
While the name change was optional and was limited to families that were already speaking Japanese and deemed to be proper “imperial subjects,” other changes were mandatory such as the regulation of local performance arts such as puppetry, banning the teaching of Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese) in schools, forced conversion to Shintoism and worship and the abolishment of Chinese-language newspapers.
Historian Ho Feng-chiao (何鳳嬌) writes in an Academia Historica study that some Japanese living in Taiwan opposed the move as it would diminish their superior status and make it harder to distinguish the two groups, and as a result the name change became a policy of “encouragement” only.
Ho writes that people could pretty much choose their own new surname, but four types of surnames were banned: those relating to the Japanese imperial house, any belonging to famous Japanese historic figures, those referring to the original surname’s place of origin in China and “other improper names.”
There were a number of ways to adopt a surname, including breaking up the original surname’s Chinese character into two parts and adopting a Japanese pronunciation, using new Japanese characters to approximate the original surname’s Chinese pronunciation or adopting certain features of their environment such as rice fields, rivers and bridges.
Tsai explains how Lee became Iwasato in his book. Iwa in Japanese means rock, which Tsai says refers to the rocky terrain of Sanjhih (三芝), where the Lee clan resided. Sato is pronounced “li” in Chinese, so in a way the Lees still retained a trace of their original name.
Taiwanese were not enthusiastic about the policy, and despite numerous government incentives, by the end of 1941 only about 1 percent of the population made the change. Many who did were either prominent citizens or those who worked closely with the Japanese or in a Japanese institution, such as public servants and teachers. Like Lee’s father, many also hoped that the name change would provide better educational opportunities for their children.
By the end of 1943, only two percent had followed suit. As a result, the aforementioned restrictions were loosened in 1944, which is when Ko’s grandfather changed his name to Aoyama.
Ho writes that once the Japanese surrendered, many Taiwanese reverted to their old names even before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) arrived to install an official reversal policy.
However, an unexpected result arose. Since all Japanese public and private property were to be confiscated by the new government, officials often couldn’t tell whether the property belonged to an actual Japanese or a Taiwanese using a Japanese name, leading to many land disputes in the early days of KMT rule.
The problem with Marx’s famous remark that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, the second time as farce, is that the first time is usually farce as well. This week Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chair Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made a pilgrimage to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “to confer, converse and otherwise hob-nob” with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials. The visit was an instant international media hit, with major media reporting almost entirely shorn of context. “Taiwan’s main opposition leader landed in China Tuesday for a rare visit aimed at cross-strait ‘peace’”, crowed Agence-France Presse (AFP) from Shanghai. Rare!
What is the importance within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) of the meeting between Xi Jinping (習近平), the leader Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), the leader of the KMT? Local media is an excellent guide to determine how important — or unimportant — a news event is to the public. Taiwan has a vast online media ecosystem, and if a news item is gaining traction among readers, editors shift resources in near real time to boost coverage to meet the demand and drive up traffic. Cheng’s China trip is among the top headlines, but by no means
A recent report from the Environmental Management Administration of the Ministry of Environment highlights a perennial problem: illegal dumping of construction waste. In Taoyuan’s Yangmei District (楊梅) and Hsinchu’s Longtan District (龍潭) criminals leased 10,000 square meters of farmland, saying they were going to engage in horticulture. They then accepted between 40,000 and 50,000 cubic meters of construction waste from sites in northern Taiwan, charging less than the going rate for disposal, and dumped the waste concrete, tile, metal and glass onto the leased land. Taoyuan District prosecutors charged 33 individuals from seven companies with numerous violations of the law. This
Sunflower movement superstar Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆) once quipped that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) could nominate a watermelon to run for Tainan mayor and win. Conversely, the DPP could run a living saint for mayor in Taipei and still lose. In 2022, the DPP ran with the closest thing to a living saint they could find: former Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中). During the pandemic, his polling was astronomically high, with the approval of his performance reaching as high as 91 percent in one TVBS poll. He was such a phenomenon that people printed out pop-up cartoon