While participating in a symposium on Oct. 20 that sought to discuss the establishment of Taiwanese subjective identity in light of current issues, which was organized by the Taiwan Association of University Professors Hsueh Hua-yuan (薛化元) said in an essay that: “Although some people do not want to be People’s Republic of China nationals, they still cannot face the reality that both sides of the Taiwan Strait are currently ‘one country on each side.’”
There are reasons for this kind of contradictory mindset. It is only through Taiwan-centric history, education and culture that the nation is likely to achieve “salvation” from the fundamentals. Under this situation, one can see the necessity of instigating Taiwan subjectivity-oriented educational reform.
After hearing this, I feel that most Taiwanese are confused between their “subjective sense of identity” and their “national status.” Before I sat the nation’s first female senior-high school entrance exam in Tainan in 1934, my Japanese teacher at Tainan Garden Elementary School, Mr Nakayama, told me: “You are Taiwanese, you have to study extra hard in order to pass the exam.”
As a 13-year-old girl, I did not understand what my teacher meant. Educational opportunities for Taiwanese and Japanese during the Japanese colonial era were unequal. Among the 100 students that were admitted that year, only three of them were Taiwanese. The 100 students were divided into two classes which each had a class president, vice president and deputy vice president.
Despite having attained the second-highest score in the exam, I was not appointed to be a class officer. Although I was very sad, I did not give up on myself and maintained a sense of balance. However, it always weighed heavily on my heart — why had I not been chosen? Later, I found out the answer. My national status was different to that of my Japanese classmates. Most of my classmates were Japanese with Japanese nationality, but I was Taiwanese with Japanese nationality. I was a Taiwanese under Japanese colonial rule. To be specific, I was a person without a country. Since that time — and for more than 70 years since — I have longed for a country of my own.
When World War II ended in 1945, I was a 25-year-old with Japanese nationality. My nationality was converted to the Republic of China without my consent. According to Japanese government documents dated April 19, 1952, native Taiwanese lost their Japanese status on April 28, 1952, in compliance with the San Francisco Peace Treaty. However, according to national government instructions dated Jan. 12, 1946, the date that native Taiwanese had their nationalities “restored” to the Republic of China was backdated to Oct. 25, 1945. From this discrepancy, one can see that the national government did not follow the principles of international law to change the national identity of the Taiwanese.
In summation, “national status” is different from a “subjective sense of identity” and clarifying Taiwan’s national identity is more important than establishing subjective Taiwanese identity. Although Taiwanese took on the nationality of the government-in-exile, without a normal national identity they are still unable to stand beside other nations, which bars Taiwan from participating in bodies such as the UN and the WHO and so Taiwanese are always subjected to unfair treatment.
The Republic of China government-in-exile did not have the right to rule the people of Taiwan. I hope one day everyone stands up and shouts “President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, you do not have the authority to rule us Taiwanese, we want to establish our own country and be the masters of it.”
Yang Liu Hsiu-hwa is chairman of the International Cultural Fund.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent