With the recent change of Chunghwa Post Co to Taiwan Post Co, a very interesting topic has re-emerged on the issue of group identity in Taiwan -- namely, should the people living here, along with the nation's institutions, be identified as Chinese or Taiwanese?
On the one hand, we have a political party that seeks to follow a project rooted in recent historical memory, a Republican Chinese one. On the other hand, we have a party that promotes a pro-Taiwan nation-state.
Political parties tell us that these are our options: Either you are Taiwanese and prefer public institution names reflecting that reality (eg, Taiwan Post) or you are Chinese and thus, your preference is for Chunghwa Post.
This idea that Taiwan's identity is either one or the other is too simplistic, only benefiting political agendas. Put another away, ethnographic work suggests that identity in Taiwan is a marriage of cultures, ways and beliefs that forged a very complex group identity. This is even more acute among the younger generation.
Interviews with the young Chinese-Taiwanese generation, brought up from post 1949 Chinese families, do not, in general, share a common bond, mode of thinking or value-set with their mainland counterparts. Young Chinese-Taiwanese who visit China can confirm this.
Interviews with young Taiwanese, whose families have lived in Taiwan for much longer, reveal that they do not see themselves differently than young Chinese-Taiwanese. In general, both groups have a common aspirations, value-set and belief structure that stems from their shared experience of living and growing up entirely in Taiwan. The young generation does not have the host-home syndrome that older generations experienced -- which is reflected by both parties' constant positioning in the political process.
For the young generation, the shared experiences of being born, educated and living in Taiwan shapes their understanding of their world. It is what shapes their common group identity.
When interviewing older versus young generations about the potential for shifting institutional names from Chunghwa to Taiwan, the young generation more readily accepts this change. They do so, however, not because they prefer being Taiwanese to being Chinese, but simply because they see themselves as distinct, unique and different from this simplistic comparison.
Reza Hasmath is based at the University of Cambridge. He is a visiting scholar at Academia Sinica.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS