The Chinese Communist Party has routinely used cultural folk elements such as the belief in deities such as Matsu for its “united front” work to propagate the idea that Taiwan belongs to China.
In a recent “united front” video, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army attempted to play the “Matsu card.”
Folk gods and goddesses are viewed differently in Taiwan and China. If these folk beliefs are to be seen as cultural assets, where is the culture most developed?
In ancient China, it was an emperor’s duty to worship heaven and earth. During the Ming and Qing dynasties, emperors called themselves “ministers of the mountains and rivers” to heaven, while ordinary people worshiped their own ancestors. From an ancient Chinese perspective, Taiwan has been so religious that if academics such as Han Yu (韓愈) and Ouyang Xiu (歐陽修) — who attached great importance to etiquette — came to Taiwan as officials, they would have done their best to put down the public’s folk beliefs.
The concept of “God bless Taiwan” has long been a part of Taiwanese daily life, but there has rarely been the concept of “God bless China” except in the case of the Boxer Rebellion during the late Qing Dynasty.
While Chinese folk culture originated in China, it has continued to develop in Taiwan, but which side is more important to such cultural assets?
Pearl milk tea, also known as “bubble tea,” is a common drink found in Taiwan, and its current version was developed in this nation.
However, milk tea originated from the Eurasian nomads. Does this mean that Taiwan, a milk-tea-loving nation, should be unified with Mongolia, Kazakhstan or other Eurasian countries?
Buddhism is also common in China. If China wanted to use Matsu as a “united front” tool against Taiwan, should India then use Buddha as a tool against China when another border dispute breaks out between them?
Jimway Chang
Kaohsiung
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS