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.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
RSS