|
EDITORIAL: The limits
of exclusion
Election fever is slowly descending upon Taiwan, promising excitement as
contrasts and divisions become more salient between and within parties. The
birth of a new political party over the weekend, whose main objective is the
creation of a new country, will add to that febrility.
Although the arrival of a new party is a welcome development in a pluralistic
democracy like Taiwan, it is important that we closely scrutinize its ideology
to ensure that it does not deviate too much from the ideals that buttress our
society.
Announcing its formation on Sunday, the Taiwanese National Party (TNP) left no
doubt that its raison d’etre centered on a hardened nationalistic stance
vis-a-vis China. Given Beijing’s unyielding claims to Taiwan, added to fears
that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration is being too “soft” on China,
it is not surprising that, with elections looming, we would see the emergence of
more hard-line rhetoric.
To a certain extent, that is a welcome development, as it will add a new angle
to the soul-searching that ought to precede important elections such as those in
January.
However, some elements of the TNP platform give us reason to pause.
One ultimate goal of the party in safeguarding Taiwan is to “expel the Chinese,”
whom Ted Lau (劉重義), identified as the “mastermind” behind the party’s ideology,
defined as “people who were born in or have lived in Taiwan for an extended
period, but who identify [themselves] as Chinese.”
Such rhetoric is dangerous, not only because it borders on a racial definition
of identity, but also because it is far too vague. Unless the TNP provides clear
parameters on what it means by identity, it will expose itself (not unjustly so)
to accusations of inciting “ethnic conflict.”
How one defines his or her identity is a very complex matter, so much so that
people are frequently at a loss when asked to define what it means to be
Australian or American. Canadians, for example, often define themselves by
telling you what they are not — in other words, through contrast with the
cultural giant next door.
Multi-ethnic societies like Canada and the US must look elsewhere, beyond mere
genetics, to delineate their identity. For such nation-states, it matters little
whether one is of Mexican or Chinese stock; as long as descendants of immigrants
or recently naturalized citizens agree to be participants in the national
experiment and are willing to work toward its betterment, they are entitled to
the same status, rights and protections as those who are, along purely ethnic
lines, considered “original” citizens.
In fact, ethnic minorities need not even abandon their identity as, say,
Colombian first and Canadian second, or Cuban-American: What matters is their
sense of belonging to and responsibility toward the melting pot that constitutes
the nation-state.
The same rule should apply to Taiwan, which has a long tradition of
multiculturalism that can only intensify as the birthrate remains low. What
matters is not so much whether one identifies as Taiwanese or Chinese, or
Aborigine or immigrant, but rather whether a person is willing to define, abide
by, shape and ultimately protect the system of values, culture, laws, mores and
languages that make Taiwan unique, and worth keeping unique. If this is the
preferred definition of identity of the TNP, then it is one worth supporting. If
it isn’t, we had well not go down the road it proposes.
Expelling people who fail to provide the right answer when asked about their
identity will invite an endless cycle of division and subdivision that, in the
end, will spare no one. Not only that, but this would go against the principle
of tolerance nations rely upon for their stability. Just ask any ethnic or
religious minority in China how intolerance has worked for them.
|
