Last year’s Sunflower movement was followed by a new political culture introduced by Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), and now some of the nation’s hallowed religious culture is being questioned through a direct challenge to the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation.
Taiwan’s democratic politics must depend on a democratic culture. Last year’s peaceful revolution brought only superficial democracy, which means that it can easily be reversed, especially in the absence of transitional justice. In addition, China’s dictatorial ways pose a major threat to Taiwan’s democracy, and the party-state comprador culture and the religious industry — which has attached itself to government power — are playing along with China.
Hopefully, Taiwan will establish a culture that prioritizes the individual’s right to speak up on independence.
On Feb. 17, Hong Kong’s government issued an internal document titled: On the correct use of language, instructing government departments to use the phrase “relations between the interior and Hong Kong” and avoid the phrase “China-Hong Kong relations,” which implies that Hong Kong is independent of China.
On Feb 7, 2011, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) announced that the government would use the phrases “the other side” or “the mainland,” rather than China, with the objective of avoiding the issue of Taiwan’s independence and sovereignty.
It seems Ma is even more colonial than the colonial Hong Kong government.
The right to speak about Taiwanese identity is an issue that I have been paying attention to for many years: I say “China” instead of “the mainland”; putonghua (the common language, 普通話) instead of kuoyu (the national language, 國語); and I also do not say “Beijing language,” since that refers to Beijing’s local dialect. I also speak Taiwanese (also known as Hoklo) instead of minnanyu (閩南語) and I do not say “Taiwan province.” Since fall last year, I have also done my best to avoid the phrase liang an (兩岸), literally “the two shores” [of the Taiwan Strait] to avoid using China’s terminology.
The 1972 Shanghai Communique contains the sentence: “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”
I have said before that this is the Chinese view, and not the Taiwanese understanding. Even if it were the view of the Chinese at the time, “the two sides of the Taiwan Strait” were both ruled by dictatorships, so there was no true public opinion.
The US used the phrase “the two sides of the Taiwan Strait,” and as we are protected by cooperation and a security treaty between the US and Japan, we should use the phrase “the two sides” to comply with the view that Taiwan and China are two nations, which is more in line with the view of Taiwan as an independent entity.
The Democratic Progressive Party has begun mixing up the two, and the same is true about its use of “China” and “the mainland.” The US recognizes “China,” and not “the mainland,” and although it does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it does recognize its existence as “an entity.”
Taiwanese activist Reverend William Luo (羅榮光) suggested that March 18 be commemorated as “Taiwan Youth Day.” I am strongly in favor of this suggestion, as it is a demonstration of the identity of Taiwanese youth and the best way to commemorate the day the Sunflower movement began its occupation of the Legislative Yuan.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS