In a speech on Oct. 23, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) expressed the hope that the celebration of Retrocession Day would allow people to discuss and review the relationship between the Republic of China (ROC) and Taiwan, adding that the continued existence of the ROC is the only way to curb Taiwanese independence.
It is pretty obvious that all the talk about discussing and reviewing the relationship is just a smokescreen, and that the KMT’s main focus is to curb Taiwanese independence and safeguard the ROC.
This is made even clearer by the fact that ever since KMT caucus whip Lin Wei-chou’s (林為洲) proposal that the word “Chinese” be removed from the party’s name met with strong internal opposition, Chiang has been at pains to distance himself from it.
A Taiwan Thinktank survey released on Sept. 24 regarding the push for normalization of the nation’s status showed that when asked about their national identity and to choose between Taiwanese or Chinese, up to 86 percent identified as Taiwanese.
Another survey released last month showed that if China were to invade Taiwan, 77.6 percent of respondents said they would be willing to fight for Taiwan.
Taiwan Thinktank deputy executive-general Doong Sy-chi (董思齊) said that three transitions of power have shaped people’s national identity, and a public consensus has gradually formed behind the Taiwanese identity.
KMT politicians are also well aware of the process leading to the formation of this Taiwanese identity, but they stubbornly cling onto the Chinese mindset that “one would rather lose one’s property to an outsider than one’s own servant.”
Their practice of shortening the “Republic of China” to “China” has created a natural connection to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) view that Taiwan is part of China.
Of course the ROC’s dependence on Taiwan has created division and opposition between the two.
Unfortunately, the KMT’s insistence on the ROC’s existence has led to a political farce and constant conflict between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. The problem has divided our nation, land and people, while distorting our education system and character, making it difficult for teachers to explain to the next generation what our nation is and where it is located.
Since the nation has been separated from the land and its people, this abnormal ideology has made it very difficult to shape our own culture and that is why spiritually, many Taiwanese either display a “colonial mentality” or a “refugee culture.” This is the real tragedy of Taiwanese.
How will the KMT define Taiwan?
Chiang recently asked some young people: “What do we think? What will we do? What future direction do we want for our nation and society?”
The way he set it up, it sounded as if he were going to make a significant declaration, but the answer he gave was simply this: “We want Taiwanese independence supporters to go to President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and ROC supporters to come to us.”
It was dumbfounding.
The KMT has been lying ever since its came to Taiwan. Following former KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) lie about the so-called “1992 consensus” and “one China, with each side having its own interpretation,” Chiang has now proposed the KMT’s future direction for Taiwan.
What is he playing at? Is he really going to try to eliminate Taiwanese independence and continue to deceive Taiwanese?
Chen Ching-kuen is an assistant professor.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS