Anyone with a minimal understanding of democratic values and the ethnic diversity of this country would shy away from promoting ethnic nationalism. But Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Po-hsiung (吳伯雄) is apparently not one of them.
“One consensus between the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT is that both sides of the [Taiwan] Strait are all yan huang zisun [炎黃子孫, descendents of emperors Yan and Huang] and shoulder a common responsibility to revive Chinese culture,” Wu said in a speech at Nanjing University in China on Sunday.
“We belong to the same culture, and such is the might that glues the relations between the two sides of the Strait that it cannot be obliterated,” he said.
Wu said both sides of the Strait would use Chinese culture as the foundation to promote cross-strait exchanges and integration in areas such as education, academics, sports and arts and to “enhance the common existence and pride of [the Chinese] nation.”
Wu’s speech reveals a pride in Han Chinese “superiority” as well as a lack of understanding of Taiwan’s diverse culture.
Wu must be unaware that a genetic study by Marie Lin (林媽利), director of Mackay Memorial Hospital’s immunohematory reference laboratory, suggests that although only 1.5 percent of people in Taiwan are Aborigines, 85 percent of Hoklo and Hakka in Taiwan are genetically linked to Austronesians through hundreds of years of intermarriage with Aborigines.
Aside from a history of colonization by Dutch, Spanish and Japanese that has left its own mark, this nation consists of Hoklo, Hakka and Aborigines along with a growing population of immigrants from Vietnam, the Philippines, Laos, Indonesia and many other countries. National Immigration Agency statistics show that one out of eight newlywed couples are cross-border couples and one out of four newborns have an immigrant parent.
“Chinese culture” is undeniably one part of Taiwan’s culture today, but Taiwan has created a culture that is rich and diverse.
In 2007, then-premier Yu Shyi-kun coined the term “Chinese Taiwanese” to describe Taiwanese of Han ethnicity. Then-KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) attacked Yu, accusing him of harming ethnic harmony.
“How cruel are they to continue their attempts to divide instead of pursuing unity,” Ma said at the time.
Ma’s failure to chide Wu for neglecting the other ethnic components of Taiwan’s diverse culture should come as no surprise given the KMT’s reputation for double standards.
Wu also described what he said was a trend in Taiwan to eliminate all references and links to Chinese culture. But Wu told his Chinese audience that such an effort would never succeed because it went against mainstream opinion.
Wu got it wrong once again. There is no groundswell for eliminating all Chinese influence in Taiwan, simply efforts to reduce the over-riding role given to it during the KMT’s authoritarian era, just as there have been bids to limit the KMT’s linkage of the party to the state.
The ultimate goal of exalting Han blood ties between Taiwan and China is unification.
Taiwan is Taiwan, not China. Taiwanese take pride in their unique cultural blend. Taiwan’s future must be democratically determined by its people, not considered a foregone conclusion because of the racially conceived “China-centric” view of the KMT.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS