Alongside a revival of local culture, “Old Taiwan” and the “Taiwanese way” — or literally translated, “Taiwanese taste” — have become fashionable again.
Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) appropriation of the name “Taiwan People’s Party” is a notorious example of this trend. Ko claims to be a successor of Chiang Wei-shui (蔣渭水), a Taiwanese democracy pioneer in the Japanese colonial era, simply because both were doctors. What Ko apparently does not know is that Chiang was only one of several doctors in the original Taiwan People’s Party, founded in 1927. Other members of that party, including Chiu Te-chin (邱德金), Peng Ching-kao (彭清靠) and Wang Kan-tang (王甘棠), were also doctors, but Ko only sees Chiang.
Moreover, the first party’s original name was “Taiwan Public Party” (台灣民黨), which was agreed upon after several proposed names were put to a vote. Taiwanese back then might have been more self-disciplined in practicing democracy, unlike Ko, who autocratically decided the name of his party.
People’s ignorance of Taiwanese history clearly restricts how they imagine Taiwan and diminishes its culture.
If only all Taiwanese knew about democracy pioneers Ong Iok-tek (王育德) and Ng Chiau-tong (黃昭堂), who devoted themselves to the Taiwanese independence movement while studying for doctoral degrees in Japan, writing dissertations that are exemplary in their fields.
Knowing about them, Taiwanese would not so easily tolerate the “degree laundering” practiced by certain politicians who have tried to obtain credentials through plagiarism.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has worked to erase all memory of early Taiwanese democracy pioneers. As a result, some Taiwanese have become untroubled by the “status quo.” They follow established rules without imagining how things could be done differently.
“When half of the people in our society become accustomed to the status quo, all of society is deprived of the ability to imagine otherwise,” National Taiwan University history professor Chou Wan-yao (周婉窈) said.
Lack of creative thought would lead to “a fear of imagining our own ‘Academia Taiwanica,’ which shall be an institute without any pro-China academician,” he added.
Taiwanese should ponder her enlightening comments, especially as an Academia Sinica academician once said that there were no intellectuals in Taiwan before 1949. This person even considered plagiarism probes — a pursuit of justice — as “a personal dispute in academia” that is “relatively trivial.”
If Taiwanese had been more familiar with local authors Lien Wen-ching (連溫卿), who in the 1920s wrote Taiwan Language in the Future (將來之臺灣語), and Kuo Ming-kun (郭明昆), a lecturer at Waseda University in Tokyo, Academia Sinica’s Institute of History and Philology would not be monopolizing the studies of those subjects.
People who read Wang Thiam-teng’s (王添?) 1946 article “On the May 5 Constitution” (對「五五憲草」管見) with care realize how sophisticated and knowledgeable Wang was. He was by no means a lesser constitutional theorist.
Official records show that Wang’s education was limited to Ankeng Public Elementary School and Chengyuan School, then a Taipei extension school.
Taiwanese cannot help but wonder what extraordinary contributions Wang would have made to Taiwan had he survived the 228 Incident.
Those who seek to diminish a nation first seek to destroy its history. A nation that is ignorant of its history can never become a great independent nation.
Chen Chun-kai is a professor of history at Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS