Earlier this month, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) said that because of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) name-change policy and the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) stolen assets issue, voters in southern Taiwan would not vote for a Mainlander president. Wang's remark both highlights ethnic differences and widens the rift between northerners and southerners.
According to a recent Taiwan Thinktank survey, the percentage of Taiwanese who believe that ethnic tensions have increased has risen drastically over the past 12 years, from 17 percent in 1995 to 31.9 percent in 2003, 55.9 percent in 2004 and 57.3 percent this year. Meanwhile, the percentage of people who believe that ethnic tensions have fallen has dropped from 63.3 percent to 36.1 percent during the same period. These statistics indicate that Taiwanese society feels the ethnic issue is no trivial matter and that it requires in-depth analysis and action.
This is how Taiwanese society in general views the political map: Southerners support the pan-green camp and Taiwanese independence, while northerners support the pan-blue camp and unification with China; people of Chinese origin are for unification, while Hoklo Taiwanese are pro-independence; DPP and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) supporters are for independence, while New Party supporters are the strongest supporters of unification, followed by People First Party (PFP) supporters; and KMT adherents can be found somewhere between the New Party and the DPP.
Although some of these stereotypes are correct, another recent survey by the same think tank surprisingly shows that most of them are wrong.
Defining a pro-Taiwanese independence stance as the belief that the Republic of China's (ROC) sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan rather than China's 1.4 billion people brings some surprising results.
First, 76.1 percent of respondents believe the sovereignty of the ROC lies with Taiwan's 23 million people, while only 15 percent include China's population. Additionally, 85 percent of 20 to 30-year-olds and 80 percent with a university degree or higher education favor independence.
What is surprising is that only 24.7 percent of people of Chinese origin favor unification, while 70 percent say the ROC's sovereignty resides with the 23 million people of Taiwan alone. I find this astonishing. I was further astonished that 27 percent of Aborigines favored unification, the highest percentage of any ethnic group, while only 45.7 percent said they want an independent Taiwan, the lowest of any ethnic group.
Most people probably thought that with the concentration of people of Chinese origin in the Taipei-Keelung area and the strong voter support for the pan-blue camp, pro-unification sentiment would be the strongest there. The fact is, however, that 80.4 percent of respondents in this area believe that sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan, topping the rest of the country, while only 76.9 percent of respondents living in Yunlin, Chiayi and Tainan counties -- all seen as pro-independence strongholds -- said the same thing.
This very interesting survey explains that the relationships between Taiwan's regions and ethnic groups are very different from the stereotypical view held in some political circles.
On one hand, this is worrying because politicians are unaware of this. On the other hand, it is a cause for celebration because it means there is no absolute and predetermined relationship between region, ethnicity and a pro or anti-independence stance, which means that information and education can put Taiwan back on track.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator. Translated by Daniel Cheng
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