The debate over who led the Chinese War of Resistance Against Japan during World War II is hardly meaningful for Taiwanese and will only get them caught in the trap of defending the legitimacy of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Should Taiwanese really endorse the KMT’s historic perspective? The answer is obvious.
In a historical context, the Republic of China (ROC), the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and even the ancient Qing (清), Song (宋), Tang (唐) and Han (漢) dynasties all directly belong to a Chinese historical lineage.
As far as the Chinese are concerned, the ROC is a government or dynasty that has already perished and became history and the PRC became the Chinese government when it inherited the Chinese legacy in 1949.
So, from this perspective, it is perfectly reasonable for the PRC, which currently represents China, to commemorate the Battle of Red Cliffs in 208, the first campaign in the Tang war against the ancient Korean state of Goguryeo in 666; Zheng He’s (鄭和) first voyage of exploration in 1405; or the end of World War II in 1945, as all these events are parts of Chinese history.
On the other hand, it makes little sense for Taiwan to fight with China over who led the War of Resistance Against Japan or who gets to have a say about it.
Taiwanese need to ask why the they are still looking at the world from the KMT’s historical perspective and why they are still defining Taiwan’s international position from the KMT’s point of view. They must completely free themselves from the historic perspective of China and the KMT.
Instead, they should re-examine the past and commemorate events that are significant to Taiwan, such as Lin Shuang-wen’s (林爽文) revolt against the Qing Dynasty in 1786, the establishment of the Republic of Formosa in 1895, the Wushe Incident (霧社事件) in 1930, the raid over Taipei by US bombers in 1945, the 228 Incident in 1947 and so on. These are significant events that Taiwanese should remember and commemorate.
Consider a hypothetical scenario: In 1930, when Taiwan was still a part of the Japanese empire, civil war erupted in Japan and Japanese communists took over the Japanese home islands, declared the establishment of the “People’s Republic of Japan,” earned the recognition of a large number of countries around the world and joined the League of Nations. The government of the overthrown Japanese empire fled to Taiwan, claimed that it was the legitimate government of Japan and fought with the People’s Republic of Japan over the right to represent Japan. In such a situation, which government would have the right to represent Japan? If the same model is applied to the situation of the PRC and the ROC, the answer becomes obvious.
Why, then, should Taiwanese take on the historic construct of the defeated KMT regime that fled to Taiwan?
Taiwanese should follow their own path, construct our their historic point of view, face their own history, have confidence in themselves as a nation, thoroughly rid themselves of leftover ideologies from the Chinese Civil War that the KMT brought with it and free themselves from brainwashing.
This is the only way for the nation to be reborn.
Lim Kuan-tsi is a student at the Graduate Institute of National Development in National Taiwan University
Translated by Ethan Zhan
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
RSS