Taiwan’s Aboriginal past, identity

By Jerome Keating

On Aug. 1, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is to make a formal apology to Taiwan’s Aborigines for the past mistreatment, loss of land and lack of transitional justice they have suffered in Taiwan. This apology is a long time coming and it is well and good that it be done.

Certainly, it is not the first time Taiwanese have witnessed an apology made by a president. Back on Feb. 28, 1995, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) apologized for the tragedy inflicted on the nation by the 228 Massacre and its aftermath of White Terror, and it is from that apology that guiding lessons can be learned.

First is that while an apology is needed, it is only the first step. Actions will have to follow. That two decades after Lee’s apology, the nation is still working on full transparency, full disclosure and full transitional justice from the 228 Massacre and the White Terror period shows that words are not enough.

Next in importance is the context and wording of this apology and how it should express a national consciousness. The wording must bring together both historical accuracy and identification with Taiwan’s present-day nation and people.

The apology must be done on behalf of Taiwanese, but what does that mean? Certainly, all Taiwanese must be included in the address, since the injustice still remains. And further, Tsai’s apology needs to show that, as president, she is apologizing on behalf of Taiwanese; she is not placing this in the context that is Chinese. There is an important difference here both in history and ethnicity.

Tsai would be saying: “We Taiwanese apologize,” and not “we Chinese,” although some, especially those who try to subvert Taiwan’s national identity, might mistakenly want to imply this. Clearly, as regards Taiwan’s democracy, it was Taiwanese who achieved that democracy as they overcame Taiwan’s most recent Chinese diaspora. So the apology must also involve all Taiwanese, and this means delving into the consciousness of how Taiwan’s varied colonial history and multiple past genetic contributions have made it what it is.

The variety of Taiwan’s past is a litany that Taiwanese need to regularly and constantly recite with the changes and many contributions that make it up. Depending on any one historical period, Taiwanese might be tempted to say: “We Dutch,” “we Spanish,” “we fleeing Ming,” “we Manchus,” “we Japanese” and even “we losers of China’s Civil War who came as diaspora.”

However, for Tsai, the only correct answer here is “we Taiwanese;” that is, the “we” who fought for and won Taiwan’s democracy. They are the ones who can understand the complexity of the role of the Aborigines as part of Taiwan’s past. And only they can understand how they must be part of the Taiwan minzu.

In Taiwan, it has been traditional for candidates of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to say: “We Taiwanese “when an election is coming up, but they quickly switch their discourse to “we Chinese” when elections are finished or they have to talk to those on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. It is those same people who dredge up and promote a Zhonghua minzu (“Chinese ethnic group,” 中華民族) concept in Taiwan in their efforts to mute Taiwan’s own unique identity and its democracy.

Hong Kongers have been through and understand the manipulation used in the term Zhonghua minzu. They understand false and broken promises and how the “one country, two systems” slogan is just a facade for “do what we tell you and don’t ask questions.” Hong Kongers stopped saying: “We Chinese” some time ago despite a predominance of Chinese roots.

In a similar vein, Americans recognize and understand that they have British roots from the British colonies, but they know the difference between understanding one’s roots and understanding their present identity. Their democracy helped them to see this difference. Even now the suggestion of the predominance of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant cultural background has taken on a derogatory sense. This is a US democracy, and not “the first British democracy.”

Taiwan’s own history of seeking home rule and democracy dates back to the Japanese colonial era and true Taiwanese understand that. It involves the question of recognizing this as part of the unique history and ancestry of their island nation.

Taiwanese can easily spot the “unificationists” and China trolls who wish to subjugate Taiwan’s democracy under the mantle of ethnicity. For unlike Chinese, Taiwanese do not have a problem with Japan, because Taiwan’s history is different from that of China.

Moreover, there is another stark aspect of its history that separates Taiwan from other colonial experiences. This is found in how things happened. In the early 1600s, 98 percent of the people in Taiwan were indigenous and 2 percent were outsiders. Now about 400 years later, it is the opposite, 2 percent are indigenous, and 98 percent are from the outside. With this, the loss of Aboriginal customs is understandable. Yet, despite that loss, a separate additional factor must still be noted.

As new immigrants came, particularly from China, the majority were males and this created the well-known saying that Taiwanese have a Chinese grandfather and a Taiwanese — indigenous — grandmother. Studies support this in saying that 85 percent of Taiwanese have a shared indigenous blood and DNA. The indigenous are “family” in Taiwan.

In contrast, in the US for example, there was always some intermarriage between colonials and the indigenous people, but there was never the volume that is found in Taiwan. One could not claim that 85 percent of Americans have indigenous blood and DNA. This 85 percent remains an unrecognized part of the Taiwan minzu. Issues with it are found in current problems the law has in recognizing the Pingpu Aborigines; the Pingpus’ assimilation has unfortunately made their contributions disappear. And further, because their history is often oral and not written down, most of it has been lost. Nonetheless, the fact that 85 percent of Taiwanese share Aboriginal DNA remains treated like a dark secret; the majority of those that do not are the recent diaspora.

All this must be part of the apology by Tsai. The apology is the right move and it is long in coming, but in it, Taiwanese must also see how their Aboriginal past is part of their identity, an identity that has often been lost in subsequent Nipponization and Sinicization.

In the international community, Taiwan has experienced a feeling of isolation as China uses the power of money to force other states to treat Taiwan like a pariah or poor cousin without status. Taiwan must use the back door to gain entry.

Aborigines in Taiwan often experience non-recognition of their past, as well as their present, even though 85 percent of the nation share their ancestry. For this reason, just as Taiwan works to come in from out of the cold in the world community, so too must Taiwan’s Aborigines be brought in out of Taiwan’s past cold to be given full recognition. These are the challenges that must accompany the apology.

Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei

Taiwan in Time: ‘Governing the savages’

The Japanese led a massive campaign against the Truku tribe in 1914, effectively stamping out the last impediment toward total control of the colony

By Han Cheung  /  Staff reporter

The red line shows the extent of Japanese control in this 1901 map. Beyond was Aboriginal territory, which the Japanese did not effectively control until around 1915.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

• 1
 
• 2

Taiwan in Time: July 25 to July 31

In late July of 1914, a fierce, two-month battle was nearing its end in the mountains of present-day Hualien County (花蓮).

Sakuma Samata, then-governor general of Taiwan who personally participated in the battle, had fallen off a cliff a month earlier and was in critical condition — but the outcome was already decided, as the main resistance had surrendered and given up their weapons a few weeks earlier.

Soon, the Japanese would finally effectively control Taiwan in its entirety, the process taking more than two decades as it spent the first decade dealing with armed Han uprisings.

With more than 10,000 men on the Japanese side, this would be the largest and final battle of Sakuma’s Aboriginal pacification campaign.

The Japanese took over Taiwan in 1895, but up until 1910, they still were not able to entirely control the mountainous Aboriginal areas. The government mostly isolated the Aborigines in the mountains with “guard lines,” which consisted of wooden or electric fences (and sometimes landmines) with guard stations. These lines were originally defensive in nature, but eventually they became a means of cutting off and encircling the tribes as they were built deeper and deeper into Aboriginal territory.

The Truku had caused the colonial government trouble as early as 1896 and was reportedly one of the fiercest tribes to resist Japanese rule. The last major incident took place just four months after Sakuma took office in August 1906, when about 30 Japanese were killed, including the governor of Karenko Subprefecture (the eastern part of today’s Hualien County).

Sakuma had dealt with the Aborigines as early as 1874 during the Mudan Incident, when Japan sent a punitive expedition to punish Paiwan tribesmen who had killed 54 shipwrecked Ryukuan sailors. He reportedly earned the epithet “Demon Sakuma” due to his fierceness during this battle and was the one who killed the Mudan Village chief.

In 1907, Sakuma announced his first five-year plan to “govern the savages.” For the Aborigines in the Truku area, this entailed setting up new guard lines in the mountains to further isolate the tribes, and then finally subjugating them through military action if necessary. He also had ships patrol the coast to cut them off from the other side.

Some Aborigines surrendered and allowed the enclosures, either intimidated by force or enticed by governmental promises — but others decided to fight, leading to several bloody incidents. Sakuma decided that a new direction was needed.

In 1910, he received massive funding from the Japanese government for a new five-year plan, taking on a more aggressive, militaristic approach with armed police, especially in the northern part of Taiwan. They continued to push the guard lines forward, with a major goal of confiscating the weapons of the Aborigines, leaving them with no means to resist. Most estimates show that more than 20,000 guns were collected during this time.

There were several groups that were classified as “vicious savages,” and therefore, Sakuma required military expeditions. After campaigns against other tribes in 1910, 1911 and 1913, Sakuma saved the Truku for last.

Starting from 1913, Sakuma sent scouts to survey the Truku terrain, and also trained Truku language translators. In late May of 1914, the 69-year-old personally led more than 10,000 police, soldiers and other personnel toward Truku territory. Most records show that the Truku had at most 3,000 fighting men.

This was not a straight-up extermination campaign, as the troops promised the Aborigines they wouldn’t be harmed if they handed over all their guns and ammunition — and many did so. After two months of battle, the fighting gradually resided and the official surrender ceremony was held on Aug. 13.

At the end of the war, the Japanese had only lost about 150 men, of which 76 were killed in battle, according to official numbers from the Governor-General’s Office. There are no numbers on how many Aborigines were killed.

Afterward, the Japanese sent personnel in to the mountains to build roads and bridges, set up telephone wires as well as round up the remaining ammunition and people who went into hiding. They also built police and patrol facilities and stationed troops in the area.

Sakuma recovered from his injuries and headed back to Japan in September to report to the emperor the completion of his mission. He remained as governor-general until April 1915.

Taiwan in Time, a column about Taiwan’s history that is published every Sunday, spotlights important or interesting events around the nation that have anniversaries this week.

Activists pour ink on Koxinga statue

By Wang Chieh and Jonathan Chin  /  Staff reporter, with staff writer

A statue of Koxinga in Tainan’s North District is surrounded by police officers yesterday after Aboriginal rights activists poured red ink on its pedestal.

Photo: CNA

Aboriginal rights activists yesterday poured red ink on a statue of Koxinga (鄭成功) in Tainan’s North District (北區) to demand justice and autonomy for Aborigines, saying that the public should not revere a historical figure who massacred Aborigines and calling on President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to prioritize Aboriginal justice issues.

The activists, carrying banners, gathered by the statute near Tainan Station and poured red ink on the the statute’s feet and pedestal, to symbolize that Koxinga had “trampled on the blood of Aborigines.”

Police arrived at the scene to stop the demonstrators, resulting in an argument.

The protesters said they are instructors at universities such as the National Cheng Kung University and Chang Jung Christian University (CJCU), adding that they are members of the Justice for Aborigines Alliance.

Lo Yung-ching (羅永清), an assistant professor of Taiwan Studies at CJCU, told reporters that Koxinga was “responsible for massacres and persecution of Aborigines,” adding that the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) draft bill to promote transitional justice “does not give due consideration to the Aboriginal historical perspective.”

Lo called on the Tsai administration and DPP lawmakers to draft a transitional justice bill to specifically to address Aboriginal groups, establish a committee for Aboriginal justice and work toward state reparations, self-governance and a restoration of “dignity and sovereignty” for Aborigines.

Although Tsai’s campaign platform included many of the alliance’s demands, including granting Aborigines substantive autonomy, Lo said it is time for Tsai to fulfill those promises.

“President Siao Ing should not think that an oral apology is enough to put the matter to rest,” Lo said, using Tsai’s nickname.

Tsai has promised to officially apologize to Aborigines in her capacity as president on Monday, Aborigines Day.

FEATURE: New hope for Aborigines amid threats to their culture

By Michelle Yun  /  AFP, TAITUNG

For Tama Talum of the Bunun community, hunting is a way of life, integral to his tribal customs — but after his arrest for illegally killing a deer and goat on land near his village, he fears those traditions will soon die out.

It is just one of many cases reflecting the wrangling between the government and Aborigines, with critics saying laws discriminate against Aboriginal cultures and that society as a whole has little understanding of them.

President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — the first Taiwanese leader with Aboriginal blood — will attempt to ease those tensions when she delivers the first ever apology to the nation’s Aborigines on Monday for injustices they have suffered over the centuries.

“An apology isn’t going to solve all the problems, but symbolically it shows Tsai is willing to face this issue,” said Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Kolas Yotaka, who is from the Amis people.

“It gives us hope,” she added.

However, for Tama Talum, the damage is done.

The 57-year-old is a free man while he awaits the result of an appeal to the Supreme Court after an uproar in the Aboriginal community over his three-and-a-half-year sentence for possessing an illegal weapon and hunting a protected species.

Aboriginal hunters are legally allowed to use only homemade firearms — which they say can be dangerous and have led to injuries — and to hunt on festival days, restrictions to which many object.

Tama Talum’s arrest has already stopped younger members of his community from wanting to hunt, he said.

“Some of them are scared after seeing me being dragged away. They don’t want to learn. I was an optimistic man, but it is hard to be upbeat,” he said.

Anthropologists say Taiwan’s Aborigines have linguistic and genetic ties with Austronesians in Malaysia and Indonesia. They make up about 2 percent of the nation’s population.

Their sense of injustice revolves mainly around the loss of ancestral land rights, which first came under threat when immigrants from China arrived 400 years ago.

Much of that land is now designated as national parks, leading to clashes over hunting, fishing and foraging in areas where permits are needed.

“There are so many restrictions, telling us what we cannot do,” Tama Talum said at his home, nestled among mountains in Taitung County.

Corn and rice fields surround the village of Tastas — “waterfall” in the Bunun language — where about 250 people live in simple corrugated-metal roofed houses.

“We are not stealing or robbing anyone, and it is not that we are hunting everyday,” he said.

Tama Talum moved to a city in search of work, but eventually returned to take care of his mother.

Aboriginal unemployment is higher than the rest of the workforce and their wages average about 40 percent less than the national average, according to the Council of Indigenous Peoples.

A lack of autonomy to manage and live off their land also exacerbates social issues, such as alcohol abuse, according to Scott Simon, a professor at the University of Ottawa, who researches Taiwanese indigenous rights.

“The alcohol problem is a major public health issue that is not being adequately addressed. These issues are related,” he said.

Despite the challenges, some young Aborigines are trying to reconnect with their roots.

“What we want is simple: Give us back what was originally ours,” said Kelun Katadrepan, who works for an Aboriginal TV station.

The 30-year-old from the Puyuma community has started a campaign to gather young professionals to advocate Aboriginal involvement in politics.

In addition to restoring dispossessed land, Kelun Katadrepan wants an overhaul of the education system to prevent further loss of tribal languages — five have been designated as “severely endangered” by UNESCO.

His parents did not want to teach him their language while growing up, believing he needed to master Chinese to secure a better future.

“We are not Chinese, but we are forced to learn Chinese since we are little. That is not our culture,” Kelun Katadrepan said.

However, there have been gradual efforts to change that.

While teaching is usually in Chinese, some schools offer options to take Aboriginal language classes. There are also community colleges where traditional customs and skills are taught.

With the DPP in power, Kolas Yotaka hopes government regulations will be brought in line with the Aboriginal Basic Act (原住民族基本法), adopted in 2005 to protect Aboriginal rights.

That would correct current contradictions, including hunting being illegal apart from during major festivals — even though the act protects Aboriginal rights to kill wild animals for self-consumption.

Tama Talum said he has not risked hunting since his conviction, except for a sanctioned foray during a spring festival, where young Bunun men demonstrate their hunting skills and pray for a good millet harvest.

He still clings onto hope that his son, who was raised in the city and is now in his 30s, will eventually learn the old ways.

“After a while, when the time comes, he will think of going to the mountains with his father,” he said.

Have no fear of ‘unification’: Hung

By Shih Hsiao-kuang and Alison Hsiao  /  Staff Reporters

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu speaks at the party’s “consensus camp” for young people in Taipei yesterday.

Photo: Liu Hsin-de, Taipei Times

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) said at a “consensus camp” held by the party for young people yesterday in Taipei that critics did not properly understand the so-called “1992 consensus,” and that terms such as “unification” should not spark fear.

She also defined the China-Taiwan relationship as being “between two regions,” saying that as the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution still exists and the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) has not been abolished, the cross-strait relationship is one between two regions.

Before people criticize the “1992 consensus,” they should first have a good understanding of the historical background of this term and give it an unbiased evaluation, she said.

The “1992 consensus” — a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) admitted making up in 2000 — refers to a tacit understanding between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese government that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.

Hung said that the nation’s identity is in crisis and many Taiwanese fear talk of “unification” or any mention of “zhong guo “(China,中國).

“We cannot unify others but are afraid of being unified by the Chinese Communist Party,” she said. “Taiwan simply does not have the needed materials to obtain independence, because that would mean waging a war. Do people really have the guts to throw their heads away and spill hot blood to establish a Taiwan republic?”

She said the KMT is endeavoring to help Taiwan find a way out, as there is no guarantee for how long Taiwan can maintain the “status quo,” but lamented that the KMT in doing so has often been labeled “red.”

“However, I’m not afraid of being labeled. Because politicians need to speak truthfully, rather than talk nonsense for the votes,” she said, adding that people would not support the KMT if it simply copies the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Hung said that people have forgotten that the KMT kept Taiwan safe and helped it to develop and prosper after it came to Taiwan, and remember only the 228 Incident and the White Terror era.

“Has the KMT done nothing else?” she said, adding that learning from history is the way to prevent repeating it.

“It is tragic for Taiwan that some politicians always pour salt into the wound and manufacture hatred, opposition and polarization,” she said.

Hung also commented on the recent change of rules made by Academia Historica on reading files stored in the institution that would restrict people from China, Hong Kong and Macao from accessing the files, which the institution said is “returning to what the law demands.”

“The DPP in the name of transitional justice wants the KMT to open its files concerning the party’s history to the public, but at the same time discriminates against people from certain regions when it comes to accessing the nation’s history, which is a move that is clearly of questionable intent and inappropriate,” she said.

Poll finds split on Aboriginal issues

By Loa Iok-sin  /  Staff Reporter

Ahead of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) scheduled apology to the nation’s Aborigines on behalf of the government tomorrow, the results of a poll released yesterday indicated that Aborigines and non-Aborigines have differing ideas about which issues the government should prioritize.

For the first time, the nation’s leader is to officially apologize for the injustices that the governments of Taiwan have perpetrated against Aborigines, as a step toward reconciliation and transitional justice.

However, the results of a poll conducted by the Taiwan Thinktank show that people of different ethnic backgrounds have different ideas on the most important aspects of transitional justice for Aborigines.

When asked to name the most pressing issue facing Aboriginal communities, 43.8 percent of respondents said that solving the nation’s unequal distribution of resources is the most urgent issue, while 29.1 percent said promulgating legislation that protects Aboriginal land rights, and 21.2 percent of the respondents said Aboriginal autonomy.

However, breaking down the respondents according to ethnic division, while 43.8 percent of ethnic Taiwanese and 49 percent of Hakkas identified the unequal distribution of resources as a priority, 63.2 percent of Aboriginal respondents considered protection of land rights the top issue, while Aboriginal autonomy was also well-supported.

“The poll results are very interesting, because we can see how Aborigines and non-Aborigines think differently,” New Power Party Legislator Kawlo Iyun Pacidal, an Amis Aborigine, said at a news conference in Taipei to release the poll results.

“This is why so many Aborigines have taken to the streets today [yesterday], because, while they think it is positive that the president is to apologize, they they want to make sure that Tsai is aware of the issues that they care about,” he added.

Although an official apology might be historically significant, “apologizing is simple; what’s more challenging is the reconciliation process that follows,” Pacidal said.

Aboriginal groups put pressure on Tsai

HISTORIC:President Tsai Ing-wen is tomorrow expected to issue the first official government apology to Taiwan’s Aboriginal community for historical injustices

By Abraham Gerber  /  Staff reporter

Aborigines from Hualien County protest at Liberty Square in Taipei yesterday.

Photo provided by The Self Help Association Demanding the Restoration of Aboriginal hunting rights

President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) should make concrete promises to pass Aboriginal transitional justice legislation and protect hunting and other rights, Aboriginal activists said yesterday, as hundreds of protesters descended on Taipei, days prior to a widely anticipated official apology to Aborigines tomorrow.

Tsai has promised to issue an official apology to Aborigines for historic injustices on the nation’s Aboriginal Day.

Details of a planned Aboriginal transitional justice commission overseen by the Presidential Office are also to be announced, with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) earlier this month promising to pass legislation to implement the Aboriginal Basic Act (原住民族基本法), including an Aboriginal self-rule act, language development act, land and sea rights act and recognition for Pingpu (平埔) Aborigines.

The party’s legislative caucus has blocked efforts by Aboriginal legislators to include Aborigines in transitional justice legislation, instead focusing on Martial Law era abuses.

More than 70 activists from the Aboriginal Transitional Justice Alliance protested outside the Legislative Yuan for several hours yesterday morning before marching to Ketagalan Boulevard shortly after noon to camp out within sight of the Presidential Office Building, calling for education, hunting and land rights, while singing a victory chant to the tune of a Christian hymn.

“We demand that President Tsai not just make empty promises,” said alliance president Kumu Hacyo, an independent Tainan city councilor who caucuses with the DPP.

Hacyo called on Tsai to promise passage of an Aboriginal transitional justice act, outline a concrete timetable for passage of other legislation and recognize indigenous sovereignty by establishing a communication platform between national government and Aboriginal communities.

Hacyo also called for the establishment of a parallel Aboriginal transitional justice commission under the Executive Yuan — mirroring the transitional justice commission targeting Martial Law era abuses — adding that a commission established under the Presidential Office would be largely symbolic without real authority to force cooperation from government agencies.

Hundreds of protesters, mainly from Hualien County’s Taroko community, marched from the National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to Ketagalan Boulevard, waving mock hunting rifles and shouting for revisions to the National Park Act (國家公園法) to recognize traditional hunting rights.

“Everything that flies, crawls or swims is protected except flying squirrels and wild boars, which completely ignores ecological balance and our hunting rights,” Sediq community member Logim said, calling for traditional territories to be removed from the jurisdiction of national parks.

Legal Aid Foundation Taitung Branch executive secretary Jewel Chen (陳采邑) called for the passage of an Aboriginal hunting act to clarify Aboriginal rights, adding that unrealistic hunting restrictions and vague hunting rifle rules have led to the conviction of more than 355 Aborigines since the passage of the Aboriginal Basic Act (原住民族基本法), which guarantees traditional hunting rights.

“Current laws are in opposition to Aborigines’ hunting lifestyle, requiring complicated applications and restricting hunting to specific rituals. Any other hunting, even hunting purely for self-use with no profit or sales involved, is subject to a minimum six-month sentence under the Wildlife Conservation Act (野生動物保護法),” she said, adding that judges typically directly sentence hunting violations without holding a court hearing, denying the accused the right to invoke the Aboriginal Basic Act.

“The definition of the ‘self-made hunting rifle’ which Aborigines are required to use is also extremely vague, which creates a situation in which every judge has their own definition,” she said. “The law also does not have any specific rules for bullets, leading to convictions even if the gun used is legal — as if Aborigines are supposed to throw their guns at animals.”

“The government treats Aboriginal hunting rights like a welfare benefit,” said Association for Taiwan Indigenous People’s Policy president Yapasuyongu Akuyana, who is a member of the Tsou community, at a separate conference on Aboriginal transitional justice at the Legislative Yuan.

He said that implementation of the Aboriginal Basic Act had been hobbled by its confinement within the constitutional structure of the Republic of China, leading to restrictive interpretations of the act’s right guarantees even when enabling legislation for hunting and other rights was passed.

“As long as we do not consider indigenous sovereignty, any talk of implementing the basic law is a groundless fantasy,” he said, adding that implementing Aboriginal transitional justice was crucial to establishing such sovereignty.

National Dong Hwa University Department of Ethnic Relations and Culture professor Shih Cheng-feng (施正鋒) said an apology without restoration of indigenous sovereign rights would amount to a “political show.”

“The DPP’s objective is to further the establishment of a Taiwanese national identity comprised of different ethnic groups, but while that is important, if the policy stops there, Aborigines will still be left in a position of being dominated,” he said.