Tsai Ing-wen Plays the "Taiwanese Identity" Card


Tsai Ing-wen Plays the “Taiwanese Identity” Card
YouTube Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-nnaHgVy8A&feature=channel_video_title

Caption:
Taiwan, where are you?
Taiwan, what do you want?
Taiwan, where are you going?
What’s next?
TAIWAN NEXT 現在決定未來! / Now determines the future!

Soundtrack: 
Cue cover of Iz Kamakawiwoʻole’s rendition of “Over the Rainbow”

Tsai Ing-wen (v.o.)
一九八零年代 / During the 1980s
我是在倫敦經濟學院 / I was at the London School of Economics
我的老師 / My teacher
不斷的啟發我們 / endlessly inspired us
社會中有中一條理性的道路 / Society has a rational path
有一個扛起責任的政府 / a government that bears responsibility 
打造一個均富永續的國家 / that forges an equitable and enduring nation
台灣要走向世界 / Taiwan must walk toward the world
我是台灣人 / I am Taiwanese
我是蔡英文 / I am Tsai Ing-wen

Caption:
TAIWAN NEXT 現在決定未來! / Now determines the future!

Tsai Ing-wen Plays the “Taiwanese Indentity” Card
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
July 14, 2011

Tsai Ing-wen, DPP candidate for Republic of China President in 2012, has played the “Taiwanese Identity” card.

Watch this slickly made campaign commercial, commissioned by Tsai Ing-wen’s campaign committee. But don’t be fooled. The  impeccably professional production values, replete with a cover of Iz Kamakawiwoʻole’s rendition of “Over the Rainbow,” mask deeply repugnant psychological attitudes.

Tsai’s concluding remarks in the commercial are: “I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen.”

Tsai’s opponent is incumbent President Ma Ying-jeou (KMT), who was born in Hong Kong.

Many native English speakers unfamiliar with politics on Taiwan, especially those living in the US, may not fully appreciate what Tsai is getting at. They may have difficulty discerning her subtext. They may find it hard to read between the lines.

To better understand what Tsai Ing-wen is really saying, imagine the same commercial in the US, run by white supremacist David Duke, running against a Barack Obama type “outsider,” someone cast as “not one of us.” Imagine Duke concluding with: “I am American, I am David Duke.”

No one would have the slightest difficulty understanding what Duke was getting at. Everyone would know Duke was implying that his opponent was “not an American, not a white American.”

And so it is with Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement. They remain motivated, today in 2011, as they have been for the past four decades, by atavistic identity politics and petty ethnic hatred.

The more rabidly fundamentalist supporters of Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement are unguarded in their speech. They scream about how “Taiwanese bulls” will exterminate “Chinese pigs,” at the top of their lungs.

Tsai however, gives their barnyard bigotry a kinder, gentler face, the way genteel white supremacists such as Peter Brimelow give white racism a kinder, gentler face.

The sad fact is, DPP leaders and the Taiwan independence movement are motivated at their psychological and emotional core, not by any longing for “democracy, freedom, and human rights,” but by their compulsion to craft a “Taiwanese ethnic and national identity.”

The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is not practical. The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is moral. The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is its self-hating “We’re Taiwanese, not Chinese” identity politics.

As Sisy Chen, former DPP Public Relations Director noted, “The DPP is the KKK of Taiwan.” As Cheng Li-wen, former DPP National Assembly Member noted, “I never wanted to believe that the DPP was racist, but it is.”

Make no mistake. The KMT was indeed at one time guilty of gross abuses. These abuses were committed by a government against its own citizens.

They were typical of abuses committed by countless governments against their own citizens. They must be harshly condemned, and have been harshly condemned, even by KMT leaders.

Tsai, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement, however, knowingly and deliberately misrepresent these abuses. They misrepresent them as abuses committed by “one tribe against another, different tribe.”  As abuses committed by “one people against another, different people.” As abuses committed by “mainlanders against natives.” And ultimately, as abuses committed by “Chinese against Taiwanese.”

Why do they engage in this flagrant misrepresentation of the facts?

Because they need a rationale for their ethnic identity based project of nation building, for the creation of a Hoklo Chauvinist themed “Republic of Taiwan,” and have no qualms about lying to achieve that goal.

In 2004 for example, a delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to DPP elder Shen Fu-hsiung. Shen was under pressure to spill the beans, and testify that First Lady Wu Shu-cheng had accepted huge cash bribes from a prominent businessman.

What textual truth did these devout Christians share with him? They solemnly assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In other words, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of course it advances Taiwan independence.”

Tsai Ing-wen has marketed herself as a reformer whose mission it is to upgrade the DPP. Sad to say, she has done no such thing. Instead, the DPP has downgraded Tsai Ing-wen, bringing her down to its level.

Assuming of course that Tsai Ing-wen was not already at their level from the beginning.

The following is a recent UDN News editorial on Tsai Ing-wen’s “I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen” campaign commercial.

Decoding Tsai Ing-wen’s “I am Taiwanese.”
United Daily News editorial
Taipei, China
Translated by Bevin Chu
July 21, 2011

“I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen,” This declaration means that “Ma Ying-jeou is not Taiwanese.” It means also that “They are not Taiwanese.” That is, those who support Ma are “not Taiwanese.” Tsai’s declaration does not just divide Ma from Tsai. It divides society as well.

Just exactly what is Ma Ying-jeou? According to Green Camp political logic, Ma Ying-jeou is a “mainlander.” By implication, Ma Ying-jeou is “Chinese.” By further implication, he is a “Chi-Com fellow traveler.” Context reveals meaning. Ma Ying-jeou, by implication, is “not Taiwanese.” In fact, Tsai’s declaration is merely a sanitized version of “Chinese pigs, get the hell back to China.” According to Green Camp logic, Ma Ying-jeou stands for a “foreign regime,” for “eventual reunification,” and for “pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan.” Therefore Ma Ying-jeou is “not Taiwanese,” By implication he is “Chinese,” just like “those people” on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. Therefore Green Camp political rhetoric often equates the China Nationalist Party with the Chinese Communist Party. Lashing out at the Kuomintang means lashing out at the Chinese Communists. Sometimes it even equates the Republic of China with the Peoples Republic of China. Opposition to the ROC is hence equated with opposition to the PRC.

The Republic of China government has scant wherewithal currently to represent China as a whole. This is primarily the fault of Beijing. Few people on Taiwan identify themselves as “Chinese.” This too is primarily the fault of Beijing. Therefore when Taiwan independence advocates incite “ethnic struggles,” they spin them as showdowns between “Taiwanese” on the one side, and “Chinese” on the other. On Taiwan, being labeled “Chinese” is now the equivalent of being a “Chinese” person from the other side of the Taiwan Strait. The term “Taiwanese” is no longer merely an antonym for “Mainlander.” That merely invokes the issue of “ethnicity,” or more accurately, provincial origin. Today the term “Taiwanese” has been transformed into an antonym for “Chinese.” That invokes the issue of “national identity.” According to the self-styled “Taiwanese” in today’s Democratic Progressive Party, the Republic of China is a “foreign regime.” Ma Ying-jeou is a “Territorial Governor,” and supporters of the Republic of China are “Chinese.” By implication, opposition to Taiwan independence is opposition to Taiwan. Opposition to Taiwan independence is “lack of love for Taiwan.” Opposition to Taiwan independence is proof positive that one is “not Taiwanese.” This is the clear and unambiguous subtext behind Tsai Ing-wen’s declaration, “I am Taiwanese,”

But champions of this rhetorical framework must prove that Taiwan independence is the only way to save Taiwan, and the only way to demonstrate one’s love for Taiwan. Unfortunately for them, Taiwan independence is a movement whose time has come and gone. Since martial law was lifted, Taiwan has been subjected to over 20 years of internal and external shocks. These shocks swept Taiwan independence into the dustbin of history. With their ringing declarations that “I am Taiwanese,” Tsai Ing-wen and DPP officials are encouraging Taiwan independence supporters to cling to their delusions. They are inciting social divisions. In fact, Tsai and the DPP no longer have the chutzpah to openly champion Taiwan independence. Otherwise, Tsai Ing-wen would have come right out and declared, “I am a champion of Taiwan independence. I am Tsai Ing-wen!”

This is the pathetic reality behind this political farce. Chinese from the other side of the Taiwan Strait have become “Mainland tourists.” They have become Taiwan’s “sixth ethnic group,” second only to foreign spouses. Tsai Ing-wen was encouraging delusions of Taiwan independence. Why else would she revive the long dead Taiwan independence mantra, “I am Taiwanese?” Since she insists on reviving the “I am Taiwanese” mantra, why not use the more common phrase, “My Nation of Taiwan compatriots?” Why not come right out and champion Taiwan independence?

This has long been the plight of the Democratic Progressive Party. It flirts with Taiwan independence, but does not dare openly champion Taiwan independence. Unfortunately, Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped within this dilemma of self-delusion. Tsai Ing-wen opposes the 1992 consensus. She opposes ECFA. She opposes “politically motivated procurements.” All her positions are based on Taiwan independence political and economic logic. But when all is said and done, she cannot publicly champion Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped. She can flirt with Taiwan independence, but she cannot openly promote Taiwan independence. In which case, what are we to make of her “Taiwan Next” gimmick?

Three years ago, Tsai Ing-wen became Democratic Progressive Party Chairman. She clearly hoped to shrug off this albatrosss around her neck. In March 2009, she issued a manifesto entitled, “Defend Taiwan with a New Concept of Nativism.” She said “Some people have unintentionally [sic] defined Nativism far too narrowly. They have invested it with a specific meaning. Their narrow definition of Nativism is at odds with our need to unite for our collective survival.” What does Tsai Ing-wen plan to do with her “I am Taiwanese” TV spot, which intentionally defines Nativism ar too narrowly.

DPP officials can no longer talk through their hats. They can no longer treat the term “Taiwanese” as their private property. Taiwan independence advocates can not longer treat the term “Taiwanese” as their private property, And finally, Tsai Ing-wen has no right to treat the term “Taiwanese” as her private property. Taiwan independence is an ideology that can only create chaos on Taiwan. It cannot save Taiwan. Therefore, it is not a means by which one can demonstrate “love for Taiwan.” Taiwan independence advocates must cease using the terms “Republic of China” and “Nation of Taiwan” to divide the nation, They must cease using the declaration that “I am Taiwanese (whereas you are not)” to divide Taiwan.

Some people may persist in using such terms as “love for Taiwan” and “Save Taiwan” to define who is “Taiwanese.” Perhaps we should compare Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. Which of the two has demonstrated greater allegiance to the nation’s Constitution? Which of the two has crafted a cross-Strait policy that has benefitted the public on Taiwan? Which of the two deserves the honorific “Taiwanese” more? Perhaps we should let the public decide.

Tsai Ing-wen did not say “I am a champion of Taiwan independence, I am Tsai Ing-wen.” She was afraid even to whisper it. Why do DPP officials insist on flirting with Taiwan independence, when they are afraid to champion it?

解讀蔡英文的「我是台灣人」
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.07.21 02:32 am

「我是台灣人,我是蔡英文」這句話不但意謂「馬英九不是台灣人」,而且意謂「他們不是台灣人」;亦即,支持馬就不是「台灣人」。一手區隔馬蔡,一手撕裂社會。

那麼,馬英九是什麼人呢?依綠營的政治邏輯,由馬英九是外省人,進一步將馬英九推向他是中國人,再進一步更將他推往根本就是中共的同路人。從語境的營造言,將馬英九隱指為不是台灣人,其實只是「中國豬滾回去」的化妝版;在這樣的邏輯下,馬英九是「外來政權」、「終極統一」、「傾中賣台」,所以馬英九不是台灣人,進而將他打成與對岸一樣的「中國人」。因而,在綠營的某些政治操作中,中國國民黨與中國共產黨可以相互代換,所以打國民黨就等於打中共;甚至中華民國與中華人民共和國也可相互代換,所以反中華民國就等於反中華人民共和國。

由於中華民國的「中國代表性」已經幾乎不存在(這主要是北京造成的),所以「中國人」在台灣的身分認同也站不住腳(這也主要是北京造成的);因而,當台獨將台灣的族群鬥爭建構在「台灣人/中國人」的對立之上,在台灣若被指為「中國人」,就成了與對岸一樣的「中國人」。而「台灣人」亦不再只是與「外省人」對稱(這只是族群議題),而是與「中國人」對稱(這就升高為國家認同問題)。所以,在民進黨今日的語境中,所謂的「台灣人」,就是將中華民國視為「外來政權」,將馬英九視為「區長」,將中華民國的支持者視為「中國人」;因此,反台獨就是反台灣,反台獨就是不愛台灣,反台獨就不是台灣人……,這些,皆是蔡英文那句「我是台灣人」的潛台詞。

然而,此一論述若要成立,須先確立「台獨是救台灣與愛台灣的方案」;但經歷解嚴後二十餘年來的內外衝擊激盪,台獨已成歷史泡沫。民進黨及蔡英文現在只是想用「我是台灣人」來煽動台獨的幻覺,與撕裂社會,但已再無能力明目張膽地鼓動台獨;否則,蔡英文就應當直截了當地說:「我是台獨,我是蔡英文!」

這正是這齣政治鬧劇的可悲可痛處。在對岸中國人的「陸客」漸將成為台灣「第六大族群」的今日(次於外配),如果蔡英文不是在操作台獨的幻覺,何必回頭玩弄「我是台灣人」的台獨老梗?而既然要回頭玩弄「我是台灣人」的老梗,更何不乾脆使用民進黨常聞的開場白「咱台灣國的鄉親父老」,而旗幟鮮明地主張台獨?

這是民進黨的一貫困境,玩弄台獨,卻又不敢明白主張台獨;不幸的是,蔡英文今日仍陷此種自欺欺人的困境之中。蔡英文反對九二共識、反對ECFA、反對「政治性採購」,皆是建立在台獨的政經邏輯之上,但她畢竟絕無可能公開聲言主張台獨。所以,蔡英文仍未走出「玩弄台獨,不敢台獨」的宿命,既如此,她所謂的Taiwan Next怎堪設想?

蔡英文三年前剛接民進黨主席時,很明顯地曾想奮力擺脫此一噩運。她在二○○九年三月發表〈以新本土觀捍衛台灣〉專文指出:「有些人無意的(我相信是無意的)把『本土』窄化成一種排他性的觀念;這種窄化的本土詮釋……跟我們團結成生命共同體的需要是矛盾的。」現在,蔡英文要如何面對這支「我是台灣人」的廣告,竟然是如此「有意地」玩弄此種窄化又排他的觀念。

民進黨不可再自說自話地將「台灣人」據為私用,台獨亦無可能將「台灣人」據為私用,蔡英文更何德何能將「台灣人」據為私用。台獨已是「只能亂台、不能救台」的方案,因此亦絕非「愛台灣」的方案;所以,不要再用「中華民國/台灣國」來分裂國家,也不要再用「我是台灣人/你不是台灣人」來撕裂台灣。

如果真要用「愛台灣」「救台灣」來區別誰才是「台灣人」的話,其實,若以馬英九的國憲認同及兩岸政策,與蔡英文的相比較,何者更配稱作「台灣人」,誠可付諸公評。

蔡英文未說出「我是台獨,我是蔡英文」的潛台詞,連偷偷小聲說出也沒有。民進黨,何必還要搬弄「鬧台獨,卻不敢台獨」?

Advertisements

8 responses to “Tsai Ing-wen Plays the "Taiwanese Identity" Card

  1. Hi, noted your post on July 14 which would have been otherwise logical in the timing — but did you not see the recent flurry with President Ma? After the finger pointing to the DPP of using identity ploy, the President played to the quote of 「誰 是什麼人?」這個問題最近有很多的討論。血統上,我是中華民 族炎黃子孫,我熱愛中華文化;身分上,我認同台灣,為台灣打拚, 我是台灣人;國籍上,我是 中華民國國民。而我也是中華民國總統。 各位網友覺得自己是什麼人呢?請大家也來分享一下各位對自己是誰 的看法吧。So with Chinese blood from the Emperors, a dash of Taiwanese identity, some ROC nationality, you don't think President Ma is playing identity games by claiming all three? How did you feel about that comment, are you proud? Have you seen the recent "I am an ROC-er" slogan that came out this week?How do you feel about that? I have plenty of feedback from one side but would love to hear the identity of a Republic of China-er in conjunction to what is the difference of Taiwanese, Chinese, People's Republic of China-er, Korean, Republic of Korea-er, etc.We all probably agree that politicians play games but it's not neutral reporting to state this only happens on one side.

  2. Dear d, Thank you for being civil and not resorting to racist obscenities. I can tell you from decades of experience that's extremely rare among Green Camp Netizens. Re: my blog entries. They're not supposed to be "neutral reporting." They're editorials! They're polemical opinion pieces. They're supposed to be biased. Biased of course, is not the same as "mendacious." I know only too well that lying is counterproductive. I never knowing state untruths. If I unknowingly post an untruth, I always correct it when it is brought to my attention. Statistically far more pro Green editorial writers are engaged in non-neutral English language editorializing than pro Blue editorial writers. It is hardly "unfair" for me to close the gap ever so slightly.Pro Green bloggers are still way ahead in quantity, albeit not quality. Pro Green bloggers often come to my blogs and try to guilt-trip me. They say I must grant "equal time" or "equal space" to pro Green positions. They accuse me of intolerance if I do not obediently comply. I have to laugh at their feeble attempts at intimidation. There are thousands of pro Green blogs on the Internet. There is no upper limit to the number of pro Green blogs that can be created, and the number of pro Green opinion pieces that can be uploaded. The Internet itself is the "neutral forum." Third parties who are undecided will go online. They will visit pro Green blogs. They will visit pro Blue blogs, including mine. They will then make up their own minds about who has the more truthful and convincing arguments. That's the way the system works.

  3. Dear d, For the record, I am no fan of Ma Ying-jeou. Read my lukewarm expressions of support for him in my past articles if you don't believe me. In fact, I am not really a pro Blue polemicist per se. I am a "free market anarchist" who believes that government services should be provided voluntarily by private sector service providers. It is an unconventional political philosophy, but one that is gaining greater and greater acceptance by leading edge political scientists, economists, and historians in Europe and the US. That is why my masthead reads, "individual sovereignty, universal harmony." I am pro Blue only in the sense that it is the lesser of two evils. I hope to do away with conventional style government altogether. But for the time being, as long as I am stuck with conventional style government, I object less to Blue government than I do to Green government.

  4. Speaking frankly, the ROC is a foreign government. The phrase "Chinese Taipei" proves this: it stands for "Chinese government in exile in Taipei". Obviously, you can't be in exile in your own country. Without a proper accounting of the origin of KMT government on Taiwan, no analysis of the hoklo/mainlander dispute makes any sense. Like it or not, they are two very different cultural groups and despite assimilation in both directions they remain so.

  5. So is Lee Teng-hui. Are we really that naive about the quirks of human psychology? Of political opportunism? Of jumping on the biggest bandwagon, even if it isn't our own?

  6. So the 228 Incident can be reduced to anti-Mainland racism? I suggest opening your mind to the possibility that one can have a sense of identity that is not based solely on race. I am Albertan and many Albertans feel alienated by Ottawa, which is geographically quite distant. That does not mean that we are racists. There is a spectrum between those calling for full Alberta separation and those who simply want some more local sovereignty, but racism has nothing to do with it. I suppose in your view the American Revolution can be explained as a racist phenomenon, with persons of English descent living in America seeking “apartheid” from their English brethren across the water. In fact, the more plausible explanation is they simply wanted to be free to govern themselves.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s