Examination Yuan member Lin Yu-ti's (
After all, in our school textbooks, documents, films, portraits, money, celebrations, monuments and countless other parts of our daily life, Sun Yat-sen (
Even as ruling party and opposition legislators started trading barbs over the issue, I finally got the chance to see footage of Lin being questioned on the issue of whether the "nation's father" should be abolished. His answer was that: "It would be best to abolish it, for these days, we shouldn't have patriarchal ideas."
Now that was really a shock. I had always thought of Lin as an avuncular local type with a strong sense of Taiwanese identity. I never thought that he brought such advanced feminist ideas to the concept of patriarchal social structures.
It comes as no surprise that living in this patriarchal society, we are used to patriarchal values. Friedrich Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, published in 1884, pointed out the men and women were originally equal, but that after the concept of private property was developed, with the resultant emergence of nation and class, women's status became that of chattel.
Through this process of development, the legal status of women was repressed and their freedom and ability to participate in the community constrained. Virginia Woolf lamented that "As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country."
What Lin has done is to point out the patriarchal development that has taken place within our historical and political education. Why indeed should we have a "father of the nation?" Why does our history follow a line of male rulers all the way down to Sun Yat-sen in a patriarchal line?
What is without doubt is that the concept of "father of the nation" is used to constrain thought within a framework of national rule, affirming national legitimacy and consolidating diverse social and ethnic groups with the aim of acquiring the highest degree of political power.
But does anyone remember the "mother of the country?" That was Soong Ching-ling (
Of course she knew that her husband was the founder of the Republic of China, but she also understood that the "father of the nation" is nothing more than a political symbol and it is "the people" who constitute the body of the nation. Therefore, while embracing the thought of Sun Yat-sen, she threw herself into another revolution, one that sought to overthrow the Republic of China -- not caring at all that Sun was supposedly the father of the Republic of China.
As the people constitute the body of the nation, sexual equality and equal rule by both sexes is the goal we wish to achieve. This equality should be incorporated into our thinking on government policy and education.
Who is the father of our country and do we want such a father? Well, we should go ask the nation's mother.
Cheng Wei-chun is a masters candidate in the Graduate School for Social Transformation Studies at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS