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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS