Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was asked during a Taipei City Council meeting whether he is Chinese or Taiwanese. He stammered and found it difficult to articulate his position, but eventually suggested that, while culturally he is Chinese, he is Taiwanese politically speaking.
That really is absurd. How can Ko be considered qualified to be the mayor of Taiwan’s capital if he is so afraid of saying out loud that he is Taiwanese?
His acceptance of Taiwanese values and his concept of national identity are utterly confused. He cannot seem to see straight on this issue.
Ko was, of course, being asked about his national identity, not his cultural identity. If you ask Americans, Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders the same question, regarding their national identity, they would reply that they are Americans, Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders.
Nobody would expect them to answer that they were British, irrespective of how much they approved of British culture, the political culture in the UK or the system that country adheres to.
The most ridiculous thing about Ko’s response is how it betrays his utter confusion about the difference between national identity and cultural identity, not to mention historical reality or the way of things.
You cannot try to force Taiwanese culture into the mould of Chinese culture, or attempt to equate the two. The concept is inherently wrong.
Other Asian nations, such as North and South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Vietnam have Chinese cultural elements, or have been affected by the legacy of their contact with imperial China. Regardless, they have long broken such links with Chinese culture and over the years have developed their own unique cultural systems.
Taiwan, having gone through 500 years of colonial rule and experienced Eastern and Western cultural influence, just as the aforementioned Asian countries have, has grown apart from China and has its own unique culture.
Taiwanese culture is Taiwanese culture, not Chinese culture. Taiwanese values are the collective values of Taiwanese: they are not Chinese values.
China’s authoritarian culture of 2,000 years, set against freedom, democracy and human rights, is entrenched in that society.
China has undergone 40 years of reform and the opening up of its markets, and state capitalism has made China prosperous, yet Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has still been able to buck that trend, and managed to oppose and resist the universal values of civilized development.
In amending the Chinese constitution to abolish term limits, Xi has put this civilized development into reverse and essentially restored the imperial line, with himself at the head, as emperor.
Dictatorial Chinese culture like this has nothing in common with the liberal and democratic culture of Taiwan.
Ko’s confused cultural identity and national identity — whether it is out of his innocence and incompetence, or done to please the voters of Taipei — is a big mistake.
This is about the ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy, so there is no room for ambiguity or compromise.
In November’s Taipei mayoral election, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) should not be allowed to yield to Ko anymore and should nominate a Democratic Progressive Party candidate to compete with him for the position.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a professor at the University of Queensland, Australia.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS