The Generalissimo’s Garden in Taoyuan’s Dasi District (大溪) is an absurd, tragicomic collection of about 200 retired statues of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). Yet a mere hour’s drive away in central Taipei are the sprawling grounds of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. These two scenes embody Taiwan’s contemporary identity crisis — the result of a populace which until recently was starved of political and civic power. To have any chance of survival, we must first reach a consensus on what being “Taiwanese” means.
Like Taiwan, Singapore’s de facto independence was not so long ago. Much like Taiwanese, Singaporeans were forced to question the thorny relationship between identity and statehood. In 1965, after a mere year of independence from the British Empire, Malaysia forced Singapore out of its union. Then-Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s (李光耀) vision of a multiracial “Malaysian Malaysia” jarred with Kuala Lumpur’s view of majority Malay dominance. Lee switched to promoting a Singaporean Singapore, where Indians, Malays and its ethnic Chinese majority were purposefully integrated in schools and public housing. Taiwan is more ethnically homogeneous, but still has an important and sizeable indigenous population. Among the Han Chinese mainstream, political attitudes and feelings of attachment to China differ widely.
From the racial dynamite of Singapore, a common national identity was forged. When speaking with any Singaporean, they first identify themselves with their nation before their race — a result backed up by a 2021 study by the Institute of Policy Studies at the National University of Singapore. This is a far cry from the 1960s when racial riots erupted between Malay and Chinese Singaporeans. Any questions on ties to Malaysia, India or China are limited to discussions on culture or ancestry.
Talking to a broad cross-section of Taiwanese, one finds a muddied picture. Self-recognition of a unique Taiwanese national identity only became a consistent majority position after 2008, as measured by National Chengchi University’s Election Study Center. Taiwan could learn from how Singapore managed to unite society through policy while facing pre-existing ethnic divisions.
Some Taiwanese, particularly those who came with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in 1949, still harbor nostalgia for China. Taiwan’s Chinese traditions and festivals enjoy a continuity from the past, unlike revolution-racked China. From the National Palace Museum to the use of traditional characters, the government in some aspects promotes itself as being more authentically “Chinese” than China.
Yet with Taiwan’s deep cultural ties to China, the idea of a common cultural destiny unhelpfully echoes Chinese rhetoric on political unification. With careful language and social policy, Singapore has managed to allow its people to retain their ethnic pride while elevating a national “Singaporean” identity. For Taiwan to have a future, we must also find national clarity on what it means to be “Taiwanese.” For this to be unifying rather than divisive, the next administration must strike a balancing act between recognizing its link with its Chinese past and continuing policies of Taiwanization.
This is especially important in Taiwan’s armed forces. One has to transform the deep-seated prejudice among the public against the military, whether due to the historical baggage of martial law or cultural bias against taking up arms.
Singapore started military conscription in 1967 and its two-year military service is a common bonding experience. It is a sad cliche that Taiwan’s equivalent is an exercise in futility. One might argue that Singaporean politics has been overly influenced by its armed forces, but it is preferable to a lack of military knowledge being the norm in government, as suggested by retired Taiwanese admiral Lee Hsi-ming (李喜明). Singapore has managed the impossible of making conscription a bedrock of national identity. Taiwan should have even greater potential to do the same, due to the very real threat it faces.
Resolving this identity crisis is necessary for advancing in other areas such as education. Just see the recent hoo-ha about Taipei First Girls’ High School Chinese literature teacher Alice Ou’s (區桂芝) criticism on curriculum changes to teaching Classical Chinese. The Chinese Communist Party has seized upon this apparent division in society to level accusations of desinicization. In the art sphere, a clarity on what being “Chinese” means to Taiwan is foundational to defining its potential and aspirations as a bastion of Chinese-speaking culture, whether it be mandopop, film or literature. Just as Singapore has managed to successfully leverage its reputation as a bridge between East and West, inspiring the confidence of Chinese and US leaders without being overly beholden to either, Taiwan must leverage its soft power to progress beyond its reputation in the West as simply being a manufacturer of high-tech.
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) vision for China includes “cultural confidence,” a codename for a concerted effort to co-opt China’s traditions to achieve political ends. Despite the political polarization in Taiwan, the nation could and should eventually find its own cultural confidence — one based on a shared foundation of democratic governance, religious and ethnic plurality, and encompassing a wide conception of what it means to be Taiwanese.
JC Shen is a Taiwanese student residing in Singapore.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS