Earlier this month, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) said that because of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) name-change policy and the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) stolen assets issue, voters in southern Taiwan would not vote for a Mainlander president. Wang's remark both highlights ethnic differences and widens the rift between northerners and southerners.
According to a recent Taiwan Thinktank survey, the percentage of Taiwanese who believe that ethnic tensions have increased has risen drastically over the past 12 years, from 17 percent in 1995 to 31.9 percent in 2003, 55.9 percent in 2004 and 57.3 percent this year. Meanwhile, the percentage of people who believe that ethnic tensions have fallen has dropped from 63.3 percent to 36.1 percent during the same period. These statistics indicate that Taiwanese society feels the ethnic issue is no trivial matter and that it requires in-depth analysis and action.
This is how Taiwanese society in general views the political map: Southerners support the pan-green camp and Taiwanese independence, while northerners support the pan-blue camp and unification with China; people of Chinese origin are for unification, while Hoklo Taiwanese are pro-independence; DPP and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) supporters are for independence, while New Party supporters are the strongest supporters of unification, followed by People First Party (PFP) supporters; and KMT adherents can be found somewhere between the New Party and the DPP.
Although some of these stereotypes are correct, another recent survey by the same think tank surprisingly shows that most of them are wrong.
Defining a pro-Taiwanese independence stance as the belief that the Republic of China's (ROC) sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan rather than China's 1.4 billion people brings some surprising results.
First, 76.1 percent of respondents believe the sovereignty of the ROC lies with Taiwan's 23 million people, while only 15 percent include China's population. Additionally, 85 percent of 20 to 30-year-olds and 80 percent with a university degree or higher education favor independence.
What is surprising is that only 24.7 percent of people of Chinese origin favor unification, while 70 percent say the ROC's sovereignty resides with the 23 million people of Taiwan alone. I find this astonishing. I was further astonished that 27 percent of Aborigines favored unification, the highest percentage of any ethnic group, while only 45.7 percent said they want an independent Taiwan, the lowest of any ethnic group.
Most people probably thought that with the concentration of people of Chinese origin in the Taipei-Keelung area and the strong voter support for the pan-blue camp, pro-unification sentiment would be the strongest there. The fact is, however, that 80.4 percent of respondents in this area believe that sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan, topping the rest of the country, while only 76.9 percent of respondents living in Yunlin, Chiayi and Tainan counties -- all seen as pro-independence strongholds -- said the same thing.
This very interesting survey explains that the relationships between Taiwan's regions and ethnic groups are very different from the stereotypical view held in some political circles.
On one hand, this is worrying because politicians are unaware of this. On the other hand, it is a cause for celebration because it means there is no absolute and predetermined relationship between region, ethnicity and a pro or anti-independence stance, which means that information and education can put Taiwan back on track.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator. Translated by Daniel Cheng
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS