Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) on Oct. 9 made a rebuttal to President William Lai’s (賴清德) Double Ten National Day gala speech, which was given on Oct. 5, saying that “the Republic of China [ROC] is the motherland of Taiwanese” and “every Taiwanese citizen is a Taiwanese, and also a descendant of the [mythological Chinese] Yan (炎帝) and Yellow emperors (黃帝).”
That is just plain nonsense.
Through the most basic understanding of history, Chu’s hometown in Taoyuan’s Bade Township (八德) was originally the Ketagalan settlement of Siaoli (霄裡).
At the beginning of the reign of the Qing Dynasty’s Qianlong Emperor (乾隆帝), Siaoli’s headsman and official interpreter for the Qing, Zhimuliu (知母六), assimilated into Han Chinese culture. He was given a Chinese name: Hsiao Na-ying (蕭那英). His children and grandchildren grew up primarily speaking the Meixian dialect of Hakka, having learned it from settlers who migrated to the Taoyuan foothills from Mei County in China’s Guangdong Province.
Because of this, when the ROC government was exiled to Taiwan, it rewrote the family’s ancestral lineage, grafting Zhimuliu’s ancestors into the “official” lineage of the Hsiao family of Mei County, as it was allegedly recorded.
Zhimuliu’s family were from that point apparently the descendants of Xiao He (蕭何), who was recorded as having helped establish the Han Dynasty.
If Zhimuliu’s “roots” were traced back even further, perhaps his descendants could claim themselves to be the direct descendants of China’s mythological first emperors. With history so easily and brazenly rewritten, what is to stop the revision of other histories?
By the Japanese colonial era, Zhimuliu’s descendants living in Taoyuan’s Dasi Township (大溪) spoke Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese). Japanese officials categorized them in the household registry system as belonging to the “civilized [indigenous] Formosan” or “Hoklo” ethnic group.
When one of the descendants worked in a hospital, he saw how the ROC kept up with the lineages charade and publicly shared his family’s Japanese-era family household registry. He is living proof that Pingpu people were assigned three different ethnic ancestries, but only one of those lineages is accurate.
With so many different conflicting lines of “evidence,” it is a massive feat for Taiwanese to do genealogical research and untangle the knots in the tapestry. All Taiwanese share similar stories.
When Chu served as commissioner of what was then Taoyuan County, the county included Siaoli Township and the other historic Ketagalan area of Parricoutsie (南崁社), now Nankan (南崁), and Kulon (龜崙社) — present-day Gueishan District (龜山).
New Taipei City’s recorded indigenous communities, settlements and lands also include Pulauan (武?灣社), which evolved into today’s Sinjhuang (新莊) and Sanchong districts. Peitsie (擺接社) became Banciao District (板橋), while Parrigon (八里坌社) is now Bali District (八里). The village of Sinack (雞柔社) is now Tamsui District’s (淡水) Gueiroushan (圭柔山). Touckenan (屯山社) on the western side of Yangmingshan is now Tunshan Township (屯山). Siaojilong (小雞籠社) is now Sanjhih District (三芝). The Basay settlement of Senar — among other names — is now Tamsui. Quiware (瓦烈社) is also a part of present-day Sinjhuang, and so on.
It should not be hard for Chu to grasp this history since he was once New Taipei City mayor.
Sim Kiantek is a former associate professor of business administration at National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Tim Smith
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