Liberty Square: A Response to May Chin’s “Four Agreements for Taiwan to Return to Simplicity and Authenticity”

Liberty Times

Legislator May Chin attended a seminar in China titled “Cross-Strait Relations and National Rejuvenation” in 2019, where she met with Wang Yang, then a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China, and reached a “Five-Point Initiative.” However, after Taiwan held four national referendums on December 18 last year, Legislator Chin claimed that the results reflected public opinion that had been altered through political manipulation. Her political stance has consistently been characterized by “opposing everything associated with the Democratic Progressive Party,” while cooperating with China’s united front efforts.

We would like to ask: under the framework of the “1992 Consensus,” when Legislator Chin promotes the preservation of Chinese culture, whose “Chinese culture” is she referring to? Does it include the fundamental perspectives and discourse of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples? Each time such questions are raised, why does Legislator Chin avoid addressing them directly, much like a typical politician?

Let us review the content of the Five-Point Initiative at that time:

1. Jointly uphold the “1992 Consensus” and promote peaceful cross-strait development.
2. Strengthen ethnic unity and friendship, and share the mission of national rejuvenation.
3. Deepen integrated cross-strait development and enhance the well-being and emotional bonds of the people on both sides.
4. Promote Chinese culture and maintain spiritual ties among compatriots.
5. Expand grassroots exchanges across the Taiwan Strait and promote mutual understanding among people on both sides; no force should be able to prevent exchanges and interactions between them.

Our question is this: Legislator Chin cited the recent referendum results as an example, stating that indigenous communities overwhelmingly supported all four “yes” votes. According to the results, 77% of mountain indigenous areas and 66% of lowland indigenous areas voted in favor. Legislator Chin argued that despite what she described as the Democratic Progressive Party government’s deliberate attempts to create confusion, indigenous peoples still firmly and simply distinguished right from wrong through their votes.

However, the Gospel of John 8:32 states: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Regarding Referendum No. 18 on the issue of banning imports of pork containing ractopamine, ractopamine-treated beef has been permitted in Taiwan while pork has not. There is a distinction between beef and pork. Therefore, where does the truth lie in Legislator Chin’s understanding?

Furthermore, regarding Referendum No. 17 on the restart of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, Legislator Chin called on indigenous peoples to vote in favor of restarting the plant. However, she provided no discussion regarding the subsequent disposal of nuclear waste. According to surveys showing that people in Taiwan generally do not support having nuclear waste stored near their homes, Legislator Chin’s irresponsible appeal not only failed to address the relocation and reduction of nuclear waste stored on Orchid Island (Lanyu), but also created another unresolved issue concerning potential disposal sites.

In July 2012, the Ministry of Economic Affairs announced potential candidate sites for nuclear waste disposal, including Wuqiu in Kinmen and Daren in Taitung. We would like to ask: where does Legislator Chin intend to place nuclear waste?

Irresponsible appeals by politicians, along with incomplete arguments that selectively present only parts of an issue, have already contributed to divisions within Taiwan’s democratic society and among different ethnic groups. The ideology of “opposing everything associated with the DPP” is either a deliberate pursuit of specific political interests or reflects malicious prejudice.

We call on Legislator Chin to be the one who truly needs to “return to simplicity and authenticity.” The abnormal distribution of referendum voting patterns in indigenous areas has effectively transformed indigenous communities into a field of ethnicized politics. Legislator Chin has gained political benefits while using incomplete arguments to mislead Taiwan’s indigenous peoples and deepen divisions within Taiwan’s democratic society.

We believe that what Taiwan’s mainstream society needs is harmonious communication, rather than allowing indigenous peoples to be used by Legislator Chin as a “fig leaf” for united front activities.

(The author is a second-year student in the Executive Master’s Program for Indigenous Peoples, Department of Sociology, National Sun Yat-sen University.)

News Link:
https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1494036