Both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) love to boast in their textbooks that “the Chinese nation is a peace-loving people.” Yet the vast empire that grew from what was once merely the Central Plains around today’s Henan Province and the middle-to-lower Yellow River valley was not the product of a love of peace.
On the contrary: The formation of a great empire was achieved through military expansion — what the KMT textbooks praise as “remarkable martial achievement with widespread renown.” Alongside those martial exploits, there was the policy of yimin shibian (移民實邊, “immigrating to secure the border”).
What is yimin shibian? It refers to the practice of rulers sending settlers to border regions to increase their strength in rule and defense, while also exerting cultural assimilation and economic control.
For example, in the second century BC, the Han Dynasty’s Emperor Wu (漢武帝) implemented the tuntian (屯田, military-agricultural colonies) system, dispatching Han settlers to frontier regions such as the Western Regions and Nanyue to cultivate land; during the Tang Dynasty, large numbers of Han moved into the Hexi Corridor, Sichuan, Yunnan and other borderlands. Under the Qing Dynasty, Han settlers were sent in large numbers to Russian border zones, and to East Turkestan (Xinjiang) and other frontier areas, clearing land and strengthening control.
These are historical precedents of China’s yimin shibian, and they bear profound and far-reaching effects on territory expansion, governance and cultural assimilation.
Does the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have such a policy today? Certainly — and perhaps more fiercely than ever. Besides imposing brutal repression over Tibet and East Turkestan, Beijing is also relocating large numbers of Han Chinese into these regions. It has redrawn Tibet’s territorial map, annexing much of what was traditionally eastern and western Tibet into the provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai. It moved in large numbers of Han people, intending to render Tibetans a minority to facilitate control.
The same holds true in modern Xinjiang: China has been mass-settling Han there (at one point in 1996 allegedly moving 10,000 people in a single day), making Uighurs local minorities. What is more, Han immigrants are allocated areas with ready access to water, leaving local farmers deprived of water so that many are forced to abandon farming and seek other work.
Taiwan is not a territory under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Can Beijing still carry out yimin shibian here?
It does. By indirect means — through marriage and immigration. According to data from the National Immigration Agency, by the end of February last year there were more than 384,000 Chinese spouses who had moved to Taiwan.
Of course, if these marriages were genuinely rooted in mutual affection, one cannot do anything but offer blessings.
However, while the divorce rate among Taiwanese is about 10 percent, it is as high as 45 percent within cross-strait marriages — evidence that many claim prove those marriages are used as a vehicle to obtain residency in Taiwan, only to divorce immediately after gaining citizenship.
The number of Chinese spouses who have divorced in Taiwan has reached 150,000, and it continues to grow.
These individuals — and by extension their families — exploit the National Health Insurance and labor pension systems, and even inheritance laws. After divorce, they still allow relatives to claim dependence, and those relatives continue to enjoy health insurance benefits — resembling an armada of corpse collectors, reaping the benefits of Taiwanese society. If this continues, Taiwan’s health insurance system might be undermined.
Furthermore, Chinese spouses retain the right to vote even after divorce, thus influencing elections. While Taiwanese have to be 20 to vote, Chinese spouses only need six years of residency in Taiwan.
The KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party are trying to instate legislation that reduces the six years to four, speeding up the acquisition of Taiwanese identity documents among Chinese spouses — helping the CCP accelerate its demographic influence. This indirect strategy of yimin shibian is seemingly being executed by proxies of the CCP in the Legislative Yuan.
After divorce, Chinese spouses ought to have their Taiwanese identity and health insurance eligibility canceled to end the practice of sham marriages for residency.
You might ask: What about spouses from other countries who divorce — why not treat them the same? Because those countries (unlike China) have no designs to annex Taiwan; none are attempting to pursue an immigration-backed reshaping of our national configuration.
Moreover, the government must extinguish legislative acts that amount to disguised trade or service-trade pacts such as the Offshore Islands Development Act (離島建設條例), which introduce Chinese hospitals, Chinese capital and country of origin laundering for China — because this, too, is another variant of yimin shibian.
Taiwanese must stop electing representatives who allow Taiwan to dissolve into China’s domestic affairs, allowing China to successfully orchestrate cultural and ethnic submersion via their proxies in the legislature.
Lee Hsiao-feng is an honorary professor at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Lenna Veronica Suminski
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS