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
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS