I once described independent Legislator May Chin (高金素梅) as a “well-paid spokesperson of dictator [Chinese President] Xi Jinping (習近平)” — a judgement some of my friends claimed to be arbitrary.
However, when it comes to character assessment, I follow Confucius’ (孔子) precepts: “Watch what they do and observe how they do it. How can they conceal their true self?”
During a questioning session in the Legislative Yuan, my suspicions were confirmed when Chin unabashedly referred to the Chinese president as “our Xi Jinping.”
While UK-US relations are amicable, it would be unfathomable for a US Congressperson to say “our King Charles III.” However, a Taiwanese legislator used “our” to express affinity with Xi — the head of a hostile state intent on annexing Taiwan.
That reminds me of a pro-unification colleague at Shih Hsin University, Wang Hsiao-po (王曉波). At a meeting in Beijing, he said: “We gave Taiwan great terms for the ‘one country, two systems’ principle, and yet they rejected it!” He was clearly taking the stance of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as the “we” he referred to could certainly not be Taiwan.
Born in Guizhou, China, one might understand how Wang came to develop a “China complex.” However, for Taiwan-born Chin, refusing to stand with Taiwan and sacrificing the interests of indigenous peoples to the CCP is the height of hypocrisy. Perhaps personal profit or a Chinese nationalist education swayed her to it.
On a Taiwanese history general knowledge test, when asked: “During WWII, which country bombed Taiwan?” 30 percent of my students incorrectly answered “Japan.”
“Taiwan was a Japanese colony, why would Japan attack its own territory?” I retorted.
A student replied: “Didn’t we fight Japan for eight years?”
The root issue was revealed: The student’s “we” was taken from China’s viewpoint rather than Taiwan’s. This is the result of “de-Taiwanization” education policies implemented by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). With Chinese perspectives consistently prioritized over Taiwanese history, students are misled into a Sino-centric narrative.
Below are three instances of lingering Chinese nationalism:
When paying homage to the CCP, retired army general Chen Ting-chung (陳廷寵) cursed those who supported Taiwanese independence, calling them “the scum of the Chinese nation.”
Former National Defense University principal Hsia Ying-chou (夏瀛洲) said: “Both the People’s Liberation Army and the Republic of China Armed Forces are Chinese armies.”
Former KMT Huang Fu-hsing branch legislator Tsang You-hsia (臧幼俠) said: “I would rather unify with the CCP than submit to the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP].”
As “Mainlanders” who are not originally from Taiwan, their reactions are unsurprising. Entrapped in the myth of Chinese nationalism, they lack values of democracy, freedom and human rights — let alone any sense of Taiwanese identity.
However, it becomes concerning when Taiwanese share similar views. A friend recently recounted a story from a trip to Tibet, where a businessman from Tainan told the local tour guide: “[President] William Lai’s (賴清德) presidency will solidify Taiwanese identity. We must quickly reunite Taiwan with China!”
Such sentiments from profit-driven businesspeople willing to sell out Taiwan are loathsome.
Yet, there are some instances where my faith in a shared Taiwanese identity is restored. DPP Legislator Saidhai Tahovecahe (伍麗華) shared such a story with me.
During a “Patriot Week” assembly in a Pingtung County primary school, the principal addressed the students: “It’s Patriot Week, and we all love our country. And what is the name of our country?”
“Taiwan!” all students replied in unison.
“Yes, we are Taiwan, but we are also the Republic of China,” he added, awkwardly attempting to smooth things over.
Lee Hsiao-feng is an honorary professor at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Gabrielle Killick
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS