The protests by high-school students in front of the Ministry of Education have subsided and the students and activists have returned home. However, their tearful exit on the night of Aug. 5 is not the end of the movement: Students and activists will continue to fight against the biased texts and the non- democratic procedures of Minister of Education Wu Se-hwa (吳思華) and the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
How should these new social movements — such as last year’s Sunflower movement and even younger organizers and activists of the curriculum protests — be interpreted?
Some critics try to portray them as a “radicalization” of the younger generation, calling them “anti-Chinese.” However, young people represent the new norm: They have moved away from the old-fashioned nationalism of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and are proud of their new-found Taiwanese identity.
This trend has been going on for some time. It actually started in the early 1990s with the transition to democracy. According to a survey by the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University, the percentage of people viewing themselves as “Taiwanese” rather than “both Taiwanese and Chinese” has reached almost 60 percent, and has accelerated since 2008, when Ma came to power.
So what are young people doing with their new-found identity? They value and treasure what people have achieved: a vibrant democracy and active civil society. That is why they take to the streets to protest — they perceive the actions of the Ma administration, including over the trade in services agreement and the curriculum revisions, as non-transparent, anti-democratic moves that undermine the well-being of the people.
The two movements were not “anti-China” per se, but were a protest against the closed-door, smoke-filled backroom ways in which the Ma administration was manipulating to push a newly democratic Taiwan closer to an autocratic and repressive China. These moves were a violation of the new norm of society in a free and democratic nation.
As an activist who participated in the Sunflower movement, I can say that what really disturbed us was the nonchalant and arrogant way the Ma government tried to push the service trade agreement through the legislature. This made a mockery of the principle of checks and balances that should be an integral part of a democratic system.
By the same token, the high-school students who took to the streets were first and foremost disturbed by the authoritarian way in which the government planned and implemented the self-serving and distorted changes to history textbooks. They felt that such manipulation of history has no place in a modern democracy.
So, where does Taiwan go from here? What does “I am Taiwanese” mean? It means that we the young people are proud of who we are. We are proud of our rich and multicultural history. Yes, many of our ancestors came from China, but they were pioneers who built a new life here. Our history also includes our roots in the Aboriginal communities and the new immigrants of Southeast Asia in recent decades. Also the nation was ruled by the Dutch, Spanish and Japanese. These cultures are also part of our heritage and add to our diversity.
The most important element is that Taiwanese want to determine our own fate. We have worked hard to make this a free and democratic country. We want to help make it a vibrant democracy that cares for its people and listens to its people. That is what it means to be Taiwanese.
June Lin is a student at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of National Development. She has worked this month as an intern with the Formosan Association for Public Affairs in Washington.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS