What the TNP really means
Your editorial questions the political wisdom of the Taiwanese National Party (TNP) in advocating the concept of “expelling the Chinese and protecting Taiwan (驅逐赤藍，守護台灣)” (“The limits of exclusion,” July 12, page 8). The correct translation of the slogan in my speech should actually be “Expel Chilan, Protect Taiwan,” which is modeled on a slogan advocated by Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) in the revolution he led against the Qing dynasty.
The meaning of this slogan is that it is necessary to expel the Chilan from power to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to explain the TNP definition of the term Chilan.
Before doing this, we first need to clarify certain other definitions and statements.
First, the TNP defines -Chinese as those people who are citizens of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Therefore, the majority of residents in Taiwan are not Chinese.
Second, the TNP believes that the exiled government of the Republic of China (ROC) has no legitimacy to rule Taiwan, and third, neither China nor the ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan in international law.
To promote Taiwanese nationalism, the TNP divides all permanent residents into two categories, Taiwanese and Chilan.
Chilan are those individuals and their descendants who took shelter in Taiwan after the Chinese Communist Party’s 1949 victory in the civil war and remain in Taiwan, yet continue to identify themselves as Chinese.
Under this definition, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is a Chilan, not a Taiwanese, nor a Chinese, unless he holds a passport issued by the PRC. It is important to identify this group with an appropriate name as this unique group of people maintains prestige and enjoys power in almost all areas of ROC authority in Taiwan. However, their prestige and power were obtained and consolidated by killing an entire generation of the Taiwanese elite followed by decades of government terror, just like the Nazis in Poland and the Bolsheviks in the Baltic States.
The reality is that there is an even stronger hatred in Taiwan toward those Chilan who maintain that Taiwan is part of China. This has become even more evident since Ma took power in 2008. As a result, Taiwanese have condemned the dishonest and abusive acts of Chilan as low Chinese behavior on many occasions.
The TNP believes that ordinary Chinese should not be held responsible for the evil conduct of the Chilan in selling out Taiwan’s sovereignty. Therefore, it is important to distinguish Chinese from Chilan.
Since the Chilan insist they are Chinese and that Taiwan is a part of China, the TNP advocates that no Chilan should be allowed to hold a public position in Taiwan with any meaningful authority or power. This is the meaning of “expelling Chilan [from power].”
TED LAU
Chief consultant,
Taiwanese National Party
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS