The publication of the English version of Ong Iok-tek’s (王育德) A History of Agonies is a welcome event since few Western academics are familiar with Taiwan’s history and books on the subject are rarely available in English.
Ong’s book is well-written and helps to fill a gap in this field. The occasion also highligts Ong’s immense contribution to the cause of Taiwanese independence.
Ong founded the Taiwan Youth Society in the spring of 1960. The society’s publication, Taiwan Youth, ran from 1960 to June 2002, 500 issues in all. It served to awaken Taiwanese consciousness among many Taiwanese students abroad, especially those in Japan.
Jerome Keating’s book review is informative on the early days of the Taiwanese independence movement abroad, but his statement that the independence movement originated in Japan in the 1950s and later shifted to the US in the 1970s is incorrect (“The growing pains of Taiwanese consciousness,” Feb. 25, page 11).
On Jan. 1, 1956, a group of Taiwanese in Philadelphia launched a group called Formosans’ Free Formosa (3F). The group was comprised of radiologist Thomas Yang (楊東傑) and three University of Pennsylvania graduate students — John Lin (林榮勳), Edward Chen (陳以德) and Lin Hsi-hu (林錫湖) — as well as Lo Chu-gi (盧主義), who was then attending medical school.
Lo proposed the idea of forming 3F following weeks of discussions about Taiwan. The group’s formation was spontaneous without any outside influence.
Two months later, the Provisional Republic of Taiwan Government headed by Thomas Liao (廖文毅) issued a declaration of independence in Tokyo on Feb. 28, 1956. 3F preceded the Taiwan Youth Society by four years.
On the bottom of the 3F letterhead was this statement: “We are dedicated to the establishment of a free, democratic and independent Republic of Formosa in accordance with the principle of self-determination of peoples. We repudiate, therefore, all forms of totalitarian dictatorships, Chinese Communist or nationalist.”
3F’s main tasks were to distribute periodic newsletters to Taiwanese students in the US, contacts within the US media and policy elites. In the fall of 1957, Lo helped Liao’s provisional government file a petition with the UN, seeking trusteeship to be followed by a plebiscite.
On Jan. 1, 1958, after coping successfully with the FBI’s investigation of 3F’s activities, 3F was reorganized into United Formosans for Independence (UFI) and Lo was elected as its first president.
In addition to disseminating newsletters and occasional monographs, members of UFI started visiting members of the US Congress and contacted then-US deputy secretary of state Chester Bowles. Lo also corresponded with luminaries, such as Adlai Stevenson, a US presidential candidate in 1952 and 1956, senator Wayne Morse of Montana, University of Chicago professor Quincy Wright and George Kerr.
These activities were the precursor of grassroots diplomacy that the Formosan Association of Public Affairs was to undertake in later years.
In 1958, Lo Chu-gi published under his pen name Li Thian-hok (李天福) two essays in prestigious US journals. The first was The China Impasse — A Formosan View, which appeared in the April 1958 issue of Foreign Affairs.
Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) convened an ad hoc Cabinet meeting to discuss how to respond. Then-Repubic of China ambassador to the UN Chiang Ting-fu (蔣廷黻) sent a rebuttal that Foreign Affairs declined to print.
In November 1958, New Republic magazine ran a series of articles debating Taiwan’s future with academics from the US, the UK and Australia. Lo contributed the concluding essay, Formosans Know What They Want (Nov. 24, 1958).
These papers placed the idea of Taiwanese independence as a relevant topic in the global arena.
UFI later grew into the US-wide United Formosans in America for Independence (UFAI) in 1966. In 1970, UFAI merged with Taiwanese independence groups in Canada, Europe, Japan and Taiwan to become World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI).
The seed of this agglomeration was a joint declaration that Lo drafted at the request of the Tokyo chapter in 1961.
An abridged version is as follows:
Our basic convictions: We hold the following convictions to be fundamental to the cause of Formosan independence.
1. What constitutes a nation is not speaking the same language or belonging to the same ethnic group, but having accomplished great things in the past and the wish to accomplish them in the future.
2. The history of Formosa has been nothing but an incessant struggle of a freedom-loving people for liberty against unwanted intruders.
3. We Formosans share a distinct sense of national identity derived from sharing a cultural outlook, a set of values and a common love of our native land. Our manifest sense of identity and our past struggles clearly endow to us a right to self-determination of our future.
4. The only just and legitimate basis of an independent Formosa is the recognition that Formosa belongs rightfully to Formosans.
5. Relieved of outside pressure and given a chance to manage our own destiny, we Formosans are fully capable of building a viable and dynamic democratic nation.
6. Our form of government must be based on the consent of the public, a respect for the rule of law and certain inalienable civil liberties.
7. To strive for a free and independent Formosa is the most effective way by which we Formosans can contribute to the cause of justice, humanity and peace for the world.
Ong signed the declaration on behalf of the Taiwan Youth Society and Li for the UFI.
On Jan. 1, a concert was held in Suang-lien Church in Taipei to commemorate the 60th anniversary of 3F. Ted Lau (劉重義) of the Taiwanese National Congress invited more than 10 civic groups, including WUFI, the Taiwan Presbyterian Church, the Taiwan Association of University Professors and the Lee Teng-hui Foundation to cosponsor the event, while much of the organizing work was carried out by members of the Sunflower movement. Many talented musicians gave the 600-plus audience a most memorable and uplifting experience.
At the reception and forum following the concert, Lo was asked to comment on Taiwan’s current situation and future prospects. Here is the gist of his remarks:
“Taiwan is at a crossroads of history. Taiwan faces the Chinese Communist Party’s economic infiltration, political pressure and military threats. If Taiwan should fall, Taiwanese will forfeit their freedom, dignity, and guarantee of life and property. This will be a severe calamity. Furthermore, due to its geostrategic position, Taiwan’s loss would cause the collapse of the US-Japan and US-South Korea military alliances. A decisive war between the US and China, as the latter continues its aggression to dominate the world would inevitably ensue with the potential to mushroom into World War III, thus endangering the survival of the human race.”
Rick Fisher, a US academic, has warned that if Taiwan were to fall into the hands of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), it would certainly turn the nation into a forward base for the Second Artillery, the PLA’s missile strike force armed with conventional and nuclear warheads. Fisher speculated that such a deployment is not solely due to projecting the PLA’s power into the western Pacific, but also because Taiwanese are expendable, since many are “contaminated” with Western democratic values.
On the positive side, the 2014 Sunflower movement proclaimed to the world the Taiwanese will to safeguard their sovereignty and preserve their democracy.
With a major victory by the Democratic Progressive Party in both the presidential and legislative elections in January, Taiwan can have a bright future if the public, including the awakened youth, can reinforce their national identity and raise national morale to the level of 2004, when 2 million people held hands to stage a demonstration.
Formosans’ Free Formosa is not only indispensable to the welfare of Taiwanese, but is also critical to the peace and stability of East Asia and the world. It is the way to restore honor to the heroes and victims of the 228 Incident. It is the best way to avoid ethnic cleansing, this time by the PLA.
God bless Taiwan.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS