Before I ever set foot in Asia, I had scant awareness of Taiwan’s issues vis-a-vis China. Then I found myself living in Shanghai and learning about Taiwan from the wrong side.
It was one friend in particular who shared with me the Chinese nationalistic view. I pushed back with what little knowledge I had.
“Taiwan has its own government, and its people are not citizens of China,” I said.
My Shanghai friend told me that, despite perceptions, Taiwanese wanted to “rejoin” China one day. Although I took his words with a grain of salt, I was somewhat swayed by three facts I had not been aware of: Taiwan’s actual name contained the word “China”; the National Palace Museum in Taipei proudly displays an outstanding cache of historical artifacts collected from various Chinese dynasties, as if that history was shared; and its government was ruled by a party that called itself “Chinese Nationalist.”
This was in 2007, when the Democratic Progressive Party held the presidency, but the point was valid. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was a major player at the time and returned to power the following year.
I have now been in Taiwan for six years, and needless to say, I no longer question Taiwan’s existence as a sovereign country. I pay no heed to the history of 70 years ago, or the fine print of this or that treaty signed by people long since dead. All that matters when considering Taiwan’s statehood is that several generations have developed their own culture, built their own infrastructure, developed countless schools and institutions, and are the architects of their own governance structure. It belongs to no one else.
What has stayed with me, though, was that my Shanghai friend’s reasoning was persuasive to me in my naive state. Seen from a distance, without the benefit of living here, the issue of Taiwan’s status becomes an academic argument, not a humanistic one, to the vast majority of Westerners and others who understand little about Taiwan.
This is perhaps reflected in a recent poll that showed negligible appetite among the Western public for their countries to intervene militarily if Taiwan were attacked by China.
The influence of Chinese who interact with foreigners should not be underestimated. As with my Shanghai friend, they use the imprints of China found around Taiwan — from China Steel to China Airlines to the “national” museum that holds their treasures — to persuade others that Taiwan and China are simply in the midst of an unresolved “internal dispute.”
It is well understood that removing China’s image from institutions that are tied to the government would put Taiwan’s security at risk.
However, there is one part of the national establishment that could be easily eliminated with no liability, and it requires no government action. At the voters’ whim, the “Chinese nationalists” — the KMT — could be wiped from existence.
As a foreigner, perhaps I have no business calling for political upheaval in Taiwan, but in this case, I am not concerned with the KMT’s policies or leadership. I am only imploring Taiwanese to consider what message they send to the world at large by voting for a party whose name overtly implies that the nation Taiwanese have built belongs to a foreign country.
I understand the KMT’s century-old history, first as a ruler of China under Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙), and later as an exiled government in Taiwan under Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), but today it is just a shell of its former self. Surely no one within the party is under the illusion that the KMT might one day return to Nanjing to rule the great empire. If the Chinese Communist Party ever falters, it would be replaced by a movement relevant to contemporary China, not a relic that holds a few seats in Taiwan’s legislature.
Taiwan is now in a stage of its evolution where few under the age of 70 hold any nostalgic desire for Chinese rule. It seems odd that a local political party dares to continue to serve this insignificant constituency with a name that supports China’s claims at a time when Taiwan is struggling for greater recognition of its sovereignty.
Anyone voting in local elections next month, and in the national elections that follow in 2024, should be aware that the KMT’s successes at the ballot box are used by potentially millions of Chinese and Chinese expats to convince foreigners — including international leaders and envoys — that Taiwanese are really “Chinese nationalists.”
The KMT once served a purpose, but the party now harms the nation’s image on the world stage, and hinders the long-term goal of having the country recognized internationally as the Republic of Taiwan.
Electing KMT members to any office provides fodder for Chinese officials who tell global leadership that the cross-strait conflict is a matter to be solved “internally.”
Making the KMT obsolete, on the other hand, might help create an environment in which other imprints of China are more easily removed from the Taiwanese landscape.
Michael Riches is a copy editor at the Taipei Times.
The views expressed in this article are his own.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS