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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS