Recent efforts by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government to emphasize Chinese studies in school curricula have led some people to warn of a possible “brainwashing” of the nation’s youth and the eventual dissolution of national identity. While the government’s measures are a cause for concern, their effectiveness in undermining Taiwanese identity is questionable.
For decades following its relocation to Taiwan in 1949, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) imposed strict controls on education and the media to re-sinicize Taiwanese after half a decade of Japanese colonial rule. However, even in an authoritarian and pre-Internet society, those efforts failed to transform Taiwanese into something they were not (for another example of the failure of government propaganda to turn people into mindless automatons, even in closed societies, just ask any cab driver in Cuba for his views on Fidel Castro and communism). However, despite the KMT’s repressive tactics, Taiwanese identity flourished, first as an underground movement and, after the lifting of Martial Law in 1987, as part of national politics with the emergence of the Democratic Progressive Party.
Gone are the days where state control of education can fundamentally shape young people, if it ever did. What the government failed to accomplish in a closed society with limited external sources of information has become an even more formidable task today, thanks to the multiplicity of electronic sources from which young people can access information. One need only look at China, where dissidents continue to defy the Chinese Communist Party thanks to social media, mobile phones and various Internet platforms, despite strict controls on information.
The implication of this radical change in how young people learn about their surroundings cannot be overstated and has direct ramifications in terms of how they develop their identity, both as individuals and members of a shared community. However hard a teacher might try to inculcate the view that apples are blue, young people will have access to innumerable sources of information to discredit that contention. In the electronic age, the environment that shapes young people has become much larger than the classroom. Unless the KMT turns back the clock and cracks down on freedom of expression — and does so far more successfully than even the most repressive of authoritarian regimes — convincing young Taiwanese that they are Chinese will be an exercise in futility. The genie of identity is out of the bottle and it is not going back in.
Admittedly, resistance to the kind of top-down educational propaganda feared by the more alarmist among us requires a modicum of critical thinking, but there is every reason to believe that today’s youth have the ability to do so. After all, their parents and teachers experienced the passage from authoritarian rule to democracy, a key element in the nation’s consciousness and one whose impact has been passed down by that generation. It is the responsibility of adults to ensure that such values continue to flourish. There is no reason to believe they intend to do otherwise.
The claim that young Taiwanese can somehow be “brainwashed” and will receive information uncritically not only counters the evidence, seen in public opinion polls, but is also insulting and condescending. Such views echo the contention by some in the older generation that young Taiwanese are disinterested in politics and apathetic to issues of national concern. However, the young not being easily mobilized or vocal on matters of, say, sovereignty, does not mean that they do not care or are wavering when it comes to fundamental issues. Their apparent disinterest could stem from the fact that the issue of identity is already resolved in their minds and therefore does not necessitate action.
There is little reason to believe that today’s young Taiwanese do not have what it takes to confront those who would engage in historical revisionism and turn back the clock, if that is indeed what the Ma administration hopes to accomplish.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty
I live in Taiwan because, like many foreigners, I fell in love with and chose to align my life with a Taiwanese. In an era where personal freedoms are mandatorily ceded to government decree, I am thankful to the Taiwanese government for the spousal visa, as well as the lack of demeaning bureaucratic hoops and hurdles needed to get a work permit, residency permit and healthcare. However, if I then choose to attempt citizenship, this enlightened attitude spasms to seizure, culminating in what appears to be blatant xenophobia. In contrast to Western countries, the path to citizenship mandates a protracted period