At a celebration of the 20th anniversary of the New Tide faction of the Democratic Progressive Party on Saturday, a number of faction members spoke out on the need to reach out to Mainlanders.
Liang Wen-chieh (
That the faction is considering these questions should stem the too often heard claim that the DPP is committed to manipulating the ethnic question to win elections. It is the pan-blues, trading on fears of the "ethnic" minorities, that have always been the most resolute practitioners of that electoral black art.
But we should welcome the debate that New Tide, hopefully, has opened -- it very seriously needs to be held. We assume that, resent the Mainlanders as they might for their 50-year ascendency, the majority of pan-greens do not advocate ethnic cleansing, ie, the forcible expulsion of Mainlanders to China. Indeed it is much to Taiwan's credit that while the nation's ethnic divisions are often called bitter, there has been a lack anywhere in the political spectrum of this kind of bigotry. Nor have the pan-greens shown any interest in less vicious but also generally frowned-upon measures such as making eligibility to vote dependent on passing a test in a "local" language -- ie something other than Mandarin. For a place with "bitter" ethnic conflicts, Taiwan is still tolerant.
That this country is not the former Yugoslavia, however, does not mean that there is no need for better integration if Taiwan is to emerge from its colonial past and become a nation in any substantial way. New Tide is sensibly asking how Taiwan might reach out to Mainlanders, so that they can feel part of this new nation, rather than alienated from it -- as their own political leaders have for so long taught them to be. Since we have no choice but to live together, we must seek a modus vivendi on which all sides can agree. This will inevitably mean all sides sacrificing some of their sacred cows and overcoming elements of bigotry and rejectionism. Where, asks New Tide, do we start?
There can be no definite answer at this time. The destination is known but there is no map. Indeed, in many ways we have not even surveyed the topography. Call us Pollyannas, but we suspect that if such a survey were held -- not just of attitudes and identities, but also of the honest reasons why these attitudes are held or identities felt to be important -- we might find that much of what seems so intractable might disappear. Break the perceived link between Taiwanese consciousness and Hoklo supremacism, for instance, and Mainlanders will be found to identify with China less than is thought.
What is needed is good faith on both sides, and rigorous self-policing for the kind of attitudes that vitiate rapprochement -- especially bigotry, and paying lip-service to stereotypes. This is hard enough for the pan-greens, given the historical chips on their shoulders. It is doubly hard for the pan-blues, since their leaders have a vested interest in making sure that such a rapprochement does not take place. Nevertheless there is one place to start, as we have pointed out before, and that is in the concept of Taiwan as a refuge from China. That, at least, is something Hakka, Hoklo and Mainlanders all have in common.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS