In the late 19th century, Taiwan’s eastern region witnessed a series of violent clashes: In Tuku in 1876, the Dagangkou Incident of 1877 and the 1878 Karewan Incident. The events were triggered by the Qing Dynasty’s efforts to build roads and administrative outposts in indigenous territories. What they saw as development, local indigenous peoples experienced as invasion — an erasure of ancestral lands and sacred landscapes.
A similar dynamic unfolded in the north when Liu Ming-chuan (劉銘傳), Taiwan’s first inspector-general during the Qing Dynasty, started building Taiwan’s first railway in 1887, and continued into the 20th century with the construction of highways and industrial zones. Time and again, development plans designed without cultural understanding have been met with local resistance.
Today, the battleground has expanded beyond indigenous rights. Movements to stop the Miramar Resort in Taitung County, dam projects and cement mining, and efforts to protect coral reefs all reflect a growing distrust in top-down development that ignores environmental justice and collective memory. The activities are not anti-progress protests, but calls for genuine participation and respect.
To avoid repeating the cycles of conflict, begin with three fundamental shifts:
First, recognize historical trauma. Resistance often stems not from an aversion to change, but from deep wounds left by past displacements and violence. If policymakers cannot see the scars, they will mistake caution for obstruction.
Second, respect indigenous worldviews. To outsiders, land is a resource, but to indigenous communities, it is a sacred trust — the foundation of identity and survival. It is not a matter of differing opinions; it is a clash of cosmologies. Without mutual understanding, there can be no meaningful dialogue.
Third, implement genuine participatory mechanisms. Consultation must go beyond procedural hearings. Free, prior and informed consent must be more than a checkbox — it must grant agency to local communities, including the right to say no.
Roads can connect places, but they cannot bridge trust. Construction can reshape terrain, but it cannot repair fractured relationships. Taiwan’s future development must not repeat the colonizing patterns of the past. Only through dialogue, respect and shared decisionmaking can we build a land that honors all who call it home.
Tu Hsin-fu is an indigenous affairs advocate.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS