The end of World War II in 1945 marked the end of Japan’s colonial rule over Taiwan. Instead of becoming independent as the Koreas did, Taiwan was occupied by the Republic of China (ROC).
At first, it was ruled in a quasi-colonial fashion by the Taiwan provincial administration of then-chief executive Chen Yi (陳儀). The Taiwan Provincial Government was established in 1947, following the 228 Incident. In 1949, the ROC was ousted from China by the People’s Republic of China (PRC), creating a situation in which the rival Chinas of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) faced each other across the Taiwan Strait. The two parties maintained a “Chinese standpoint” with regard to Taiwan. In historical terms, this was a tragic beginning to a complex situation that has dragged on for more than 70 years.
During the party-state era under former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), the “Chinese standpoint” in Taiwan was embodied in the slogan “Retake the mainland and save our compatriots.” Martial law, formalized by the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion, remained in place for 38 years. The full re-election of the National Assembly and the first direct presidential election took place under then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), almost half a century after the end of World War II.
The “Chinese standpoint” of the KMT in Taiwan was originally a way for the Chiangs’ party-state establishment to keep its monopoly on power. The warning expressed in A Declaration of Formosan Self-salvation, published in 1964 by National Taiwan University professor Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) and his students Hsieh Tsung-min (謝聰敏) and Wei Ting-chao (魏廷朝), was answered with political persecution. The proposals put forward by some elite “mainlanders” for democratization and national transformation also resulted in imprisonment for their proponents. In 1971, the ROC’s right to represent China at the UN was supplanted by the PRC, but the KMT still clung to the “Chinese standpoint.”
The name ROC was eventually only heard in Taiwan.
After the PRC was established in 1949, the ROC should have no longer been in a position to define the “Chinese standpoint.” When Taiwan was under KMT rule, led in turn by the two Chiangs, the PRC’s incessant propaganda about Taiwan was formulated in terms of “liberation,” a favorite slogan of the communist revolution in the 20th century. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and China tried to export revolution. It was not until the liberalization of eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union that a new era of globalization and economic cooperation arose and there was less talk of “liberation.”
The capitalist-style rise of the PRC and its new expansionist strategy — the Belt and Road Initiative — have seen dark clouds gathering once more. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a similarly sinister move.
The “Taiwanese standpoint” is the political line that Lee expounded in his 1999 book With the People Always in My Heart (台灣的主張). It is quite different from the KMT’s and CCP’s “Chinese standpoint” for Taiwan. The “Taiwanese standpoint” is rejected by the KMT, but it is the line followed by the Democratic Progressive Party and other Taiwan-centric parties, and it can be traced back to Peng’s Declaration.
Following Taiwan’s democratization, its political disputes largely arise from the conflict between the “Taiwanese standpoint” and the “Chinese standpoint.” The ROC on Taiwan has been independent of the PRC since 1949, yet KMT politicians oppose the idea that it is an independent state.
Of course an independent state can adopt juridical measures to protect its existence, including those affecting the nation’s title and distinguishing symbols, if they are controversial in terms of identity and belonging.
The political efforts of Taiwan’s political parties should be directed at realizing the “Taiwanese standpoint.” If the Chinese KMT does not change itself into a Taiwanese KMT, it can be seen as a party that exists only for the sake of the “Chinese standpoint” and places itself outside Taiwan. As such, there is no need for the KMT to exist in Taiwan, and it cannot compete as a normal political party.
Taiwan’s democratization was for the country owned by those who live in Taiwan to move toward the civilized world, not for it to revert to being a colony of an authoritarian, tyrannical state. The KMT used its martial-law regime to force Taiwanese to submit to its national policy of “retaking the mainland,” but since Taiwan became a democracy, the KMT has turned its national policy completely around. Today’s KMT wants to deceive Taiwanese into following its path of aligning with the CCP and surrendering to China.
As long as the KMT follows such a path, it is no longer worthy to exist in Taiwan.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
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
RSS