Asked whether she was a Taiwanese or from Kinmen County during an interview at the Legislative Yuan on Friday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) said: “I’m not Taiwanese, I’m a citizen of the Republic of China [ROC], from Kinmen, Fujian Province... Kinmen is not part of Taiwan.”
It is understandable that many were surprised or angered that a KMT lawmaker in Taiwan’s legislature could say that she is not Taiwanese and was a resident of Fujian Province. Fujian Province is in China, Taiwan does not belong to China and Kinmen belongs to Taiwan, at least in one definition of that name.
Following online criticism, Chen on Monday posted a clarification, but not a retraction, of her comments on social media.
It is important to explore exactly what has been said and why. Chen was essentially correct on all points, although that does not necessarily make why she said it unproblematic. At the same time, it is wise to listen to her when she says these things: She not only represents the people of Kinmen in the legislature, but her words represent how many of them feel.
That the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) was unbothered by her comments demonstrates that her words were, in themselves, neither incorrect nor controversial. MAC Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) said that he had no comment on the fact that Chen had said she was from Fujian Province, as “the ROC today does, indeed, have a Fujian Province; it matters little to me whether she says she is... not Taiwanese, so long as she says she is an ROC citizen.”
This is the complexity of cross-strait relations, and why we need to unravel the apparent contradiction. True vigilance requires being fully informed.
Chen’s passport lists her place of birth as Fujian Province. If Taiwan is defined narrowly as Taiwan proper, she is not technically Taiwanese. The Constitution divides the ROC into a “free area” and a “mainland area,” with Taiwan and the outlying islands of Penghu County (澎湖), Siaoliouciou (小琉球), Orchid Island (Lanyu, 蘭嶼) and Green Island (綠島) falling into the former, and Kinmen and Lienchiang (Matsu) County (媽祖) into the latter, as Chen mentions in her clarification. According to the Constitution, Chen is correct: She is a resident of Kinmen, which is distinct from Taiwan, understood either as Taiwan proper or as Taiwan together with the outlying islands of the “free area.” If one directly equates the ROC with Taiwan, which carries its own set of complications, then Chen is incorrect in contending that she is not Taiwanese.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) claims that Taiwan has been part of China “since time immemorial,” which is demonstrably false. However, Kinmen and Matsu were part of China’s Fujian Province when KMT forces relocated to Taiwan after they were expelled from China in 1949 by the CCP.
Whereas the status of Taiwan and the outlying islands of the “free area” remains undetermined in international law, China’s claim over Kinmen and Matsu of Fujian Province is far more clear cut.
The fact that Kinmen and Matsu are technically still part of China’s Fujian Province has been described as an “umbilical cord” extending across the Taiwan Strait and keeping the fates of the two sides more substantially connected. This was intentionally contrived and leveraged by former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) when he retreated from CCP forces in 1949: Retaining a part of China’s territory, however proportionately insignificant, reinforced his claim to represent China and justify an attempt to “retake the mainland.”
The US advised Chiang to relinquish control over Kinmen and Matsu in 1949 to avoid this complication. His successor, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), maintained this pretense while it was still tenable.
Unfortunately, that fact is exploited by the CCP to reinforce its claim over Taiwan “since time immemorial,” its contention that the Chinese Civil War between the CCP and the KMT is unfinished, and the attempt to cast the Taiwan Strait as China’s inland sea.
To understand why Chen’s comments really matter, it is important to be informed about the underlying facts, and how they can be interpreted.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS