Former Presidential Office secretary-general Chen Shih-meng (
Kudos to Chen, as it is about time some people came forward to point out the absurdity of allowing politicians to take Mainlanders for granted.
In Taiwan, the term benshengren is generally used to describe people who came to Taiwan from China hundreds of years ago and their descendants, whereas the term waishengren (Mainlander) is used to describe people who came from China with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) after the Chinese civil war, and their offspring.
For a long time however, under the guise of looking out for their physical and material well-being with laws such as the Statute Governing Reconstruction of Old Military Dependents' Villages (
It is one thing for the party to treat Mainlanders as a voting bloc, but another to define their image by associating them with the KMT.
The notion was noticeably brazen in the recent fight over the changing of the inscription on the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall's main arch.
Many pan-blue politicians objected to the renaming of the plaza to "Liberty Square" with the installment of the Chinese characters ziyou guangchang (
It is understandable that these elderly veterans felt this way, as many of them came to Taiwan decades ago on the promise of dictator Chiang Kai-shek that one day he would lead them back to their homeland in China.
But certain pro-China news outlets are happy to promote the notion that Mainlanders are and should be against the removal of Chiang-related artifacts. It's as if Mainlanders are inherently opposed to democracy and adore dictators.
Mainlanders should not be automatically viewed as pro-China just as a benshengren should not automatically assumed to be pro-independence.
There can be no political assumptions made about Mainlanders or benshengren.
The real question is whether one identifies with Taiwan or China.
It is unwise for political parties to manipulate ethnic issues whenever election time rolls around. It is even more unwise for political parties to "kidnap" a certain ethnic group at election time to serve their own political ends.
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
RSS