The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent).
The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Executive Yuan said the revision was made on the advice of the Control Yuan.
In 2022, Control Yuan member Hung Yi-chang (鴻義章) said that use of “Han” and “Indigenous” as two broad population groups only serves to highlight the division between the two groups, and is not conducive to eliminating racial discrimination or promoting equality.
Indeed, the term “Han Chinese” is liberally applied to cover most, if not all, non-indigenous groups, in Taiwan, including Hoklo (閩南), Hakka (客家), post-Chinese Civil War migrants, and even Tibetans and Mongolians. Such compulsory inclusion is a reflection of Taiwan’s history of imperialism and authoritarianism.
Taiwanese were subjected to “Sinicization” during the Chinese Qing Dynasty occupation and “Japanization” during the Japanese colonial period from 1895 to 1845. After the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) forces retreated to Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC) government imposed 38 years of martial law. Autocratic measures such as bans on speaking Hoklo and an education system focused on learning the history and geography of China were introduced to force Taiwanese to think of themselves as “Chinese” and consolidate the party’s dominance.
Even today, while foreign residents can register as “foreigners” and indigenous people can register their ethnic status on household registrations, all other Taiwanese are collectively named “Han Chinese.” What is more concerning is this incorrect demographic description has been used by the Chinese communists to falsely claim that Taiwan is part of China.
Studies have shown that most Taiwanese should be considered ethnically distinct from Han Chinese. Decades of research by medical anthropologist Marie Lin (林媽利) indicate that most Taiwanese have mixed bloodlines and genetic markers as descendants of lowland Pingpu (平埔族) and highland indigenous peoples, and are more closely related to Austronesian Aborigines and Pacific islanders, but not allied with the genetic characteristics of the major Han Chinese groups in China.
The revision of the national demographic description is also grounded on evolutionary ethnic definitions under laws such as the Indigenous Peoples Status Act (原住民身分法) and the Household Registration Act (戶籍法). These laws allowing Taiwanese to self-identify with various ethnic origins are all marks of democratization and transitional justice in Taiwan.
Using an umbrella term “Han Chinese” to refer to the vast majority of Taiwanese is inappropriate and counterfactual. On the other hand, referring to the majority as “the rest” is vague and does not do justice to their ethnic origins.
Removing the compulsory stereotyping of Taiwanese as Han Chinese could be a beginning. The government can look to two examples for inspiration — Canadians can self-report their ethnic origins while Australians can nominate up to two ancestries for classification into ancestry groups — and encourage Taiwanese to seek their factual ethnic root and self-identity.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS