A certain presidential candidate recently accused a rival of courting the so-called “Taiwanese independence” vote. Of course, they did this in the interest of voter segmentation and to consolidate their base, but the very concept does not bear much scrutiny.
The question is, can a candidate really do without the “Taiwanese independence” vote? If they say they can, then they should probably pull out of the race now.
Before we can discuss Taiwanese independence in this context, we have to agree on a definition and we might as well use a categorization used by China in its research into Taiwan.
According to this system, Taiwanese independence comes in three forms. The first is a straight out appeal for immediate de jure independence, such as the establishment of a Republic of Taiwan.
The second is advocacy of a “one China, two countries” formula, along the lines of the special state-to-state relations model proposed by then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝); Hon Hai Precision Industry founder Terry Gou’s (郭台銘) recent proposal of “one Republic of China (ROC), one People’s Republic of China (PRC)” also falls within this category.
The third and final category comprises those who advocate “one China,” that China being the ROC, and who recognize the ROC Constitution and the National Unification Guidelines.
This class is also regarded as separatist in Beijing’s eyes, and Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential candidate, should be included in this category.
In addition to these three categories, there is the concept of “cultural Taiwanese independence,” which Li Weiyi (李維一), a former spokesman of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, described as President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) attempts to “desinicize” Taiwan.
This is why it is informative to approach a discussion of Taiwanese independence from the definitions of that term devised by China.
Essentially, until Taiwan has been placed firmly under the PRC flag, every single Taiwanese — with the exception perhaps of children too small to express their political convictions — is, in Beijing’s eyes, an independence advocate in one way or another.
If this is the case, then what authority does any Taiwanese have to accuse anyone with an ROC identity number of being a Taiwanese independence advocate?
If Taiwan is really a nation, how could it not be independent? If it is not independent, what justification do Taiwanese have to elect their own president? Why do we not just accept a chief executive selected by Beijing?
The reason why Taiwanese in the second or third categories feel the need to accuse their rivals of being independence advocates can be traced to how the authoritarian KMT fled China in 1949, used military force and brainwashed the local population so as to consolidate its minority right to govern the majority.
It is 2019, and Taiwan has already progressed to a democratic, free society. What earthly reason is there to continue sullying the name of Taiwanese independence using this same old, hackneyed mindset? If a candidate does not want the Taiwanese independence vote, according to China’s definition, there are no votes to be had. Why bother running?
Of course, there is always the possibility that these accusations are made with a specific audience in mind, one that currently resides in Beijing, to demonstrate their allegiance.
Anyone doing this would do well to play and then replay recordings of Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥), caught between a rock and a hard place, on the one hand trying to appease her masters in Beijing while on the other trying to consider the interests of the Hong Kongers under her charge. Lam is bereft of any autonomy, not even able to decide for herself whether or not she can resign.
With those scenes playing out in your head, why would you consider continuing to wag your tail to please the same master?
This is especially difficult to understand when Hong Kongers, who have never actually experienced living in a democracy, have taken to the streets to resist a leader they perceive as being so under Beijing’s thumb.
It is surely inconceivable that Taiwanese, who are so used to democracy and the freedom of criticizing their elected president, would vote for the representative of the national leader of a foreign nation.
It is a pretty glaring mistake, and one that other presidential hopefuls would best bear in mind.
Tzou Jiing-wen is the editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Paul Cooper
Taiwan’s status in the world community is experiencing something really different; it’s being treated like a normal country. And not just a “normal” country, more like a valuable, constructive, democratic and generous country. This is not simply an artifact of Taiwan’s successes in combatting the novel coronavirus. It is a new attitude, weighing Taiwan’s democracy against China’s lack of it. Before I continue, I should apologize to the readers of the Taipei Times. I have not visited Taipei since the opening of the American Institute in Taiwan’s new chancery building in Neihu last year, so I was unprepared for the photograph
At a June 12 news conference held by the Talent Circulation Alliance to announce the release of its white paper for this year, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) emphasized that, in this era of globalization, Taiwan should focus on improving foreign language and digital abilities when cultivating talent, so that it stands out from global competitors. I suggest the government should consider building a professional translation industry. If the public believes that there is a relationship between learning English and national competitiveness, then the nation must consider the social cost of language education. This should be assessed to maximise educational effectiveness: Is
In the face of the COVID-19 crisis, cities around the world are re-evaluating the importance of accessible green spaces for the benefit of public health and well-being. However, Taiwan’s success in containing the virus might impede opportunities to transform its cities into greener, healthier and more resilient places. Urban vegetable gardens have been highlighted by community planners worldwide during this wave of the green-space movement. Such gardens help enhance food security and also mental health, which in turn fosters social resilience in local communities during lockdowns. Since 2015, Taipei has run the “garden city” program, which allocates vacant land for use as
In March 2011, then-US president Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told the US Senate Intelligence Committee that, considering both its capabilities and intent, communist China presented “the greatest mortal threat” to the US, followed by Russia. In the ensuing years, in the face of faltering US responses, China expanded and intensified its hostile actions against US interests and values. Consistent with US President Donald Trump’s call for a dramatic new approach, within months of taking office, his administration’s National Security Strategy said of China’s multidimensional assault: “China is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations ... implied military