A friend recently forwarded me a video address delivered by Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (李顯龍) to mark the 200th anniversary of Singapore’s establishment as a trading hub.
Lee said that after Singapore gained independence in 1965, as many as 80 percent of the population was ethnically Chinese, and this created a problem of identity, adding that the problem was exacerbated prior to independence with the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.
After 1965, Singaporean Chinese were faced with a choice: remain loyal to the “motherland” and identify as “overseas Chinese,” or show fidelity to their place of residence — this new and independent nation, he said.
Lee said that the question of identity is the same for other ethnic groups, including Indonesian and Malay Singaporeans, each of which have ties to their own motherlands.
However, following independence, the vast majority of Singapore’s residents were willing to become “Singaporeans” — in other words, a person of Chinese heritage is not necessarily “Chinese” by nationality.
The majority of Taiwanese can trace their ancestry to China, and would acknowledge that they are huaren (華人, ethnically Chinese) or hanren (漢人, Han Chinese), but they are also “Taiwanese” in all but name — Republic of China nationals by dint of the Constitution, but in reality de facto “Taiwanese nationals.”
The same is true of new immigrants from Indonesia, Vietnam and other nations. In other words, cultural and bloodline identity can and should be separated from national identity.
Therefore, any person born in Taiwan, whether they reside in Taiwan, the US or elsewhere, is free to identify as Chinese and move to China — and even apply for Chinese citizenship. This is their own personal choice. However, they are not free to force their will on others.
Nor does any person who wishes to identify as Chinese have any right to try to turn Taiwan into Chinese territory. Chinese ancestry and Chinese nationality are mutually exclusive.
Moreover, Taiwan is the native soil of many different ethnic groups, including indigenous peoples and new immigrants, who do not possess any blood ties to China.
Lee’s address contained one brilliant passage. He said that Singaporean Chinese have evolved from “fallen leaves searching for their roots” to “putting down their own roots.”
Lee’s analogy should be reflected upon by all Taiwanese. Whether you are a member of one of Taiwan’s indigenous communities or a new immigrant, whether your ancestors came to Taiwan 100 years ago or you settled here just a few years ago, everyone who calls Taiwan home should cherish this land and do their best to put down deep roots, so that Taiwan can grow into a hardy oak.
The terrible mass shooting at a Taiwanese Presbyterian church in California earlier this month is suspected to have been carried out by a man who agitated for the unification of Taiwan and China. The suspect was reportedly a member of the US branch of the National Association for China’s Peaceful Unification.
Although his parents came to Taiwan from China, he was born in Taiwan and received an education under the Taiwanese system. Yet despite this background, the suspect did not self-identify as “Taiwanese.”
He is free to adopt whatever identity he pleases, but do his bloody actions, which killed one worshiper and left five wounded, accord with the notion of “peaceful unification”?
Chen Wen-ching is an executive director of the Formosa Association of Resource Recycling.
Translated by Edward Jones
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS