Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) certainly got a number of things wrong in her comments on Taiwan’s history (“Former KMT chairwoman Hung slams ‘desinicization,’” Aug. 27, page 3).
At a forum commemorating Ming-era warlord Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) she criticized President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration for substituting “Cheng’s governance of Taiwan under the Ming Dynasty” with the “Cheng Dynasty” in school textbooks.
While Cheng was a Ming loyalist, by the time he came to Taiwan (1661-1662), the Ming Dynasty had long disappeared, as the Qing Dynasty took over in 1644. The new formulation is thus more factually correct than the old.
Hung also said that “had Cheng not reclaimed Taiwan from the Dutch 350 years ago, there would be no Taiwan as we know it today.”
The operative word here — reclaimed — is incorrect.
Before the arrival of the Dutch in 1624, Taiwan was not part of China: The Dutch found only a few hundred Hokkien fishermen and traders living along the coast, and no administrative presence from China whatsoever.
Indeed, when the Dutch tried to establish a trading post along the Chinese coast in 1622, they were told by Ming Dynasty emperor Zhu Youxiao’s (朱由校) envoys that they needed to go “beyond Chinese territory,” so the Dutch established Fort Zeelandia in what is now known as Tainan.
Certainly Hung is correct in saying that if history had been different 350 years ago, there would be no Taiwan as we know it today. We could surmise that if Taiwan had continued under Dutch rule, today it would have been a free and democratic nation, internationally recognized, just like Indonesia.
While today Koxinga’s legacy has traditionally been presented in a positive light, Taiwan’s majority population in the 1600s — Aborigines such as the Siraya — saw him as a corrupt and brutal warlord who killed many people, destroyed their culture and took their land.
This sentiment still lingers: In a survey among high school and college-aged Aborigines in Tainan earlier this year, 44.4 percent of respondents thought that Koxinga’s rule had been bad for Taiwan, while only 32.7 percent said it had been positive and 22.8 percent did not know.
So perhaps Koxinga’s legacy is not as positive as Hung would like it to be.
Gerrit van der Wees teaches the history of Taiwan at George Mason University in Virginia.
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