In a Feb. 8 article in the Yale Daily News titled "Taiwan's desinicization policy pulls at seams of One China," Xiaochen Su criticized the desinicizing policy of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration as unjustified and an obstacle to peace and cooperation for prosperity across the Taiwan Strait.
The author also cited the recent revision of the primary and secondary school textbooks as additional evidence of desinicization, since the new textbooks emphasized Taiwanese over Chinese history.
Finally, the author argued that the lack of communication across the strait is primarily the responsibility of the Taiwanese government, whose policies is preventing many Taiwanese from visiting China.
Fifty-two responses to the article were posted in the following week. The first one criticized the author as biased. Since China has the political upper hand, the writer argued, it is Beijing that should initiate communication and it should do so without imposing preconditions. The great majority of comments also highlighted the flawed reasoning behind the article, which was interpreted as reflecting the People's Republic of China orthodoxy, if not its propaganda. Many commentators were sympathetic to the DPP and the plights of Taiwanese.
In his comment, Taiwan-based Michael Turton wrote that no ethnic Han emperor had ever ruled Taiwan. Only the Qing Dynasty, a Manchu empire of non-Chinese origin, had ever occupied Taiwan and only did so for a short period of time before ceding it to Japan with some relief.
China's claim that Taiwan is "sacred national territory," therefore, is nothing but a post-World War II invention. When dictator Chiang Kai-shek (
Turton also observes that the emergence of a local Taiwan identity predated the DPP. Its seeds, rather, were sown under the Japanese occupation.
The succeeding Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime after World War II reinforced colonialism by resorting to its own oppressive practices. Turton correctly points out that the DPP's "desinicization" policies are aimed strictly at KMT policies that attempted to suppress the local identity by introducing a fictional and idealized version of Chinese culture in Taiwan.
Another writer, named Chris, drew our attention to the presence of deep cultural and social differences between Taiwanese and Chinese populations in spite of ethnic similarities. He said that should China maintain its oppressive and belligerent policies in dealing with Taiwan, the Chinese-Taiwanese identity gap would only widen.
Canadian Politico, meanwhile, suggested that the whole issue was about communism versus freedom and liberty, authoritarianism versus democratic representation and judicial interference versus the rule of law.
Ben wrote that Taiwanese democracy was the best model China could emulate because of the close ethnic relationship that exists between the two nations and that democratic transformation of China would promote peace in Asia and in the entire world. To advance democracy, Taiwan must "Westernize" and desinicize, as did Japan and South Korea. It is interesting to note that the mention of Japan in the comment engendered a wild emotional response from pro-Beijing respondents.
The debate concluded with Eddie G from Sweden, who suggested that supporters of China visit Taiwan and experience Taiwanese culture for themselves. The readers were also reminded that in the court of civilized international opinion, the destiny of Taiwan should be decided by the people who truly love and identify themselves with Taiwan. The reason an undemocratic regime continues to exist in China, the writer argued, was the result of the ignorance Chinese have about the dismal human rights record in their country.
Although the desinicization program received the support of the majority of commentators in the publication, it has been maliciously misrepresented by KMT-controlled media in Taiwan. Thus, the public has been misled into believing that Taiwanese are discriminating against the minority Chinese and that desinicization would intensify discrimination.
Facing a reversal of democratization, Taiwanese must wake up at this critical juncture in their history and use their votes to reject the undemocratic KMT on March 22, lest many find themselves joining the ranks of innumerable exiled Tibetans and Chinese dissidents.
Samuel Yang
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS