In the past, every time the pan-blue camp or mainstream discourse came upon the question of independence, the typical response was to insist that it was unethical for separatists to manipulate issues of ethnicity. The assumption behind the ethnicity argument is that Mainlanders are pro-unification whereas ethnic Taiwanese are separatists. This perspective has become a static preconception in Taiwanese society.
There have been Mainlanders in the past such as Lei Chen (
Therefore, in the past, being pro-independence could almost always be equated with being ethnic Taiwanese. But with democratization, the liberating of society from political propaganda and growing attachment to the land from living in Taiwan, the situation no longer follows the stereotype.
Recently, a poll conducted by the Shanshui Public Opinion Research Co found that 76.1 percent of respondents believe that Taiwanese sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan to the exclusion of the 1.4 billion people of China; 15 percent believed the the 1.4 billion people of China also have a say.
The 15 percent who believe that Taiwanese sovereignty is shared with China, according to stereotypical conception, should be Mainlanders. As Mainlanders make up around 12 percent of Taiwan's population, the figures seem to match up.
But according to the polling company's cross analysis, this preconception is far from correct.
In fact, 70.5 percent of Mainlanders believe that Taiwanese sovereignty belongs to Taiwan's 23 million, while only barely one quarter, 24.7 percent, of Mainlanders believe that Taiwanese sovereignty belongs to China's 1.4 billion.
If these figures are used to calculate population, the results show that 570,000 Mainlanders believe that sovereignty belongs to China's 1.4 billion. Based on the figures then, after excluding other ethnic groups, the survey shows there are 2,650,000 ethnic Taiwanese who support the same view. The stunning result is that the pro-unification group is made up of more ethnic Taiwanese than Mainlanders.
To see 76.1 percent in support of sovereignty belonging to Taiwan's 23 million and to see that the majority of Mainlanders have arrived at the same conviction is a complete reversal of stereotypical expectations. We are of course happy to see independence become mainstream, but we are happier to see the independence issue disassociated from ethnicity.
The disassociation of separatism from ethnic status demonstrates that the pan-blue camp's previous stand that discussing independence or unification would intensify ethnic conflict is now wholly inapplicable. Moreover, whether ethnic Taiwanese or Mainlander, the fact that the percentage of Taiwanese supporting independence has grown from 10 percent as was the case in the 1990s to 76.1 percent now is surely the result of persistent public dialogue.
The dialogue process was of course difficult, and for many, even painful. But the result of it is that the national consciousness is gradually solidifying.
In a time when national consciousness is consolidating regardless of ethnicity, there are still those in both the ruling and opposition parties who sensationalize issues by connecting independence with ethnicity.
Such conduct is not only wrong, but also counterproductive and shortsighted given the direction of the development of Taiwanese consciousness over the past 10 years. In the long term, this approach creates no advantages whatsoever for any political party, let alone for the development of the country.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then