Taiwan's History

For someone who is more sympathetic to the Chinese point of view when it comes to cross-strait relations, it was illuminating to read about Taiwan's history. And somehow, the sense that I got was - the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Take Murray Rubinstein's account of Taiwan's history in his book "Taiwan A New History" for instance. He noted that since the 16th century, the Chinese central government had encountered various problems with keeping coastal provinces in line. In Fujian's case, ships were sent out without permission from the central authorities. Indeed, this problem of keeping provinces in line still persists today, albeit in different forms.

In the 1680s, the Chinese leadership already envisaged that keeping Taiwan will be a headache. Why am I not surprised?

In the old days. China wanted to keep Taiwan to prevent it from turning into a haven for criminals and dissidents, and to offset foreign pressures. Now Beijing wants to re-claim Taiwan for different reasons. But what remains unchanged is the massive migraine the little island has caused, and will continue to cause.

Separately, Rubinstein also wrote that "a rice and sugar economy emerged on Taiwan despite the government's attempts to resist the cross-strait trade, prohibit family immigration, and limit the reclamation of aborigine land testified to the powerful stimuli at work."

Economics seems to have a way of propelling politics in the past, acting as an impetus. It is likely that the same principle will apply in future. In fact, there are already signs that greater economic integration had already propelled politicians from both sides to handle cross-strait relations in ways otherwise thought impossible, such as the direct flights between Taiwan and the mainland during festive occasions.

Turning to Denny Roy, despite his own personal claims of being non-biased and offering a "balanced assessment", I sense a certain biasness in his book "Taiwan A Political History". I felt that he was trying to find ways to suggest that the links between Taiwan and China were tenuous, and hence China has no basis for staking its claims over Taiwan.

For instance, he took pains to explain that those who came to Taiwan from the mainland were people who wanted a "fresh start", and hence had no desire to return to China, especially since "emigrating" was illegal at one time. I think Roy's reasoning is conjectural.

Sure, people wanted to get away from the poverty and the adverse living conditions in mainly Fujian and Guangdong provinces. But not being able to return home is probably a source of pain and sadness for many of them, given the strong Chinese sense of ancestral belonging. So instead of giving up their past, many sought to turn Taiwan into a tiny replica of the homeland they left behind.

Indeed, getting away from conditions in China certainly does not mean forgetting one's roots, else the concepts of luo ye gui gen (落叶归根 - or "Fallen Leaves Returning To Their Roots") and ren zhu gui zhong (认祖归宗 - or "Acknowledging One's Roots and Ancestors") would not have had such a stronghold on generations of Chinese over the country's long history.

Given my inclination, I was glad to read in John F Copper's book "Taiwan" that no other country had laid claim on Taiwan based on historical ties and even if so, its claims could not seriously compete with China.

He wrote: "Thus if history is to serve as the basis for a territorial claim, China has the best case to make."