To Be or Not To Be?
An Examination of People’s Preference on Independence in Taiwan
Ching-hsin YU
Organized by Center of Civil Society, Keio University Tokyo, Japan
March 5~6, 2010
(very draft, comments welcome and do not cite without author’s permission)
To Be or Not To Be?
An Examination of People’s Preference on Independence in Taiwan
Ching-hsin YU
Abstract
People’s preference on the issue of unification vs. independence has been a hot topic in Taiwan’s domestic politics and cross Strait relations. Many studies have presented valuable arguments based on this topic. This short essay intends not to duplicate these studies. Instead, it begins with a description of people’s long term preference on this issue based on empirical surveys. The associations between people’s personal attributes and the preferences are also examined. Additionally, this essay uses data collected from focus group interview to provide people’s deeper perspectives on the issue. The findings show a stable and dominant preference of maintaining the status quo over the past decade even though the pro-unification is decreasing and the pro-independence is increasing. More importantly, the results of focus group interview have clarified the ambiguous nature of maintaining the status quo on the one hand, and provided pre-conditions for both pro-unification and pro-independence.
In the final, this essay concludes that maintaining the status quo is a rational choice for people in Taiwan and will be the best policy on the cross Strait relations at present time.
Keywords: pro-unification, maintaining the status quo, pro-independence, survey date, focus group interview
Introduction
The debate over Taiwan independence or unification with China has profound political impact in Taiwan. To some degree, the nature of this controversy is closely related to the background condition (Rustow, 1970) for Taiwan’s democratization.
Researchers at home and abroad have warned that the lack of consensus on Taiwan’s future will overshadowed Taiwan’s moving toward democratic consolidation.
Numerous literatures have explored the issue of people’s preference on the unification-independence issue. Some have focused on the origins and evolving process of the issue (Wang, 1994, Sheng and Chen, 2001). Some have explored the relationships between unification-independence issue and voting behavior (Liu, 1999,
Research Fellow of Election Study Center, National Chengchi University, Taiwan. The completion of this essay is indebted to I-ching Shiao for his hard working in processing the data. Of course, it is the
Yu, 2005). Still others have addressed to the issue’s impact on cross Strait relations (Wang and Liu, 2004). Recently, thanks to the release of long term survey data, researchers also examine the changes and continuities of people’s preference on unification-independence issue (Chen and Chou, 2003). The outcomes of these studies are extensive. They studies have highlighted the political importance of unification-independence issue on the one hand and deeply academic interests on the other hand.
In reality, the issue of “independence vs. unification” has a dynamic development over the past decades. The Kuomintang (KMT) regime has consistently maintained a pro-China mentality whenever in government or in opposition. By contrast, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has upheld the idea of Taiwan independence since its early days. The competition of both camps has helped to create a multifold face of independence issue. For one thing, the issue has turned into a crucial political cleavage in society. It helps voter to discriminate partisan differences from each other. Numerous studies have tried to examine its impact on people’s political support and participation. For the other, the evolving process of independence issue also brings about complex contents. Other option, such as maintaining the status quo, emerges between independence and unification, even though its meanings are still far from clear. The multiplication of measurements has helped to refine and redefine the current cross Strait relations. Moreover, as time goes by, general differences among voters have carried a more vibrant course over the past decade. People with different social and political attributes have demonstrated different pattern of preference on the issue. There are social strongholds for unification, independence and maintaining the status quo.
Equally important, as the terms of unification, independence and maintaining the status quo getting more and more popular, there comes the questions of interpretation.
Each of the three items people choose might base on distinct consideration and expectation. As Niou suggests, “These preferences, however, are neither readily identifiable nor easily defined. For many people, it might be a simple and a straightforward choice between for or against Taiwan’s independence, but others are less decisive because their preferences are conditional on factors such as China’s military threat, the USA security commitment to Taiwan, and China’s prospects of becoming democratic and prosperous” (Niou, 2005, p. 91). How to assess these similarities and differences becomes crucial in the study of cross Strait relations.
This essay tries to present and discuss the multi-faced development of the
independence issue. It firstly presents a brief distribution of a decade long survey data on the issue of unification vs. independence. The changing patterns of people’s preference on the issue are discussed. Secondly, this essay focuses on the issue of interpretation of the three items. The meanings and choices of voter’s preference will be decoded by way of focus group interviews. In specific, the meaning of independence, unification, and maintaining the status quo will be examined. Finally, in the concluding remarks, this essay summarizes the findings of previous analyzes and addresses to the prospective of Taiwan’s democratization.
General Trend of People’s Preference on Unification vs. Independence Figure 1 shows the distribution of people’s preference over the past decade1. Several findings can be drawn from these distributions. Firstly, the item of
“maintaining status quo, decide at later date” has been a dominant one until 2008.
Moreover, its proportion is rather steady over times with an average of more than 35% of respondent choose this item. One noteworthy development on this item is its stability after 2001. In addition to the item of “maintaining status quo, decide at later date,” the item of “maintaining status quo indefinitely” also attracts 15% to 20% of respondent. Moreover, similar to the item of “maintaining status quo, decide at later date” the trend is on an increase in recent years. It turns into the second most popular preference after 2002 and continues to maintain certain margins from other items.
[Figure 1 here]
Secondly, both items of “maintaining status quo, move toward independence”
and “maintaining status quo, move toward unification” are competing with each other.
In the first three quarters of past decade, “maintaining status quo, move toward unification” is outnumbered “maintaining status quo, move toward independence.”
Nonetheless, the latter surpasses the former in 2003 and continues to the present time.
Thirdly, “independence as soon as possible” and “unification as soon as possible” are the two smaller items chosen by respondents. Still, the difference between these two items is not dramatic either. The average proportion of “independence as soon as possible” has been close to 5% or slightly more, while “unification as soon as possible” has been less than 3%. Finally, the no response rate is considerable high in early period but significantly decreases after 2001. It is slightly higher than 10% and
1 The question of unification-independence issue takes the following form: Regarding the relationship between Taiwan and China, there are several difference alternatives. Which position is closest to your own? (1) unification as soon as possible; (2) maintaining status quo, move toward unification; (3) maintaining status quo, decide at later date; (4) maintaining status quo indefinitely; (5) maintaining
is witnessed a stabilized pattern in recent years.
At a first glance, people’s preference on the unification-independence seems clear. Maintaining the status quo and do not unify with China or declare Taiwan independence has the highest consensus in Taiwan. Unfortunately, the truth is not that simple. There are more stories behind these distributions. On the one hand, it is obvious that neither unification nor independence is comfortable enough for majority of the people in Taiwan. Few respondents have chosen unification or independence as soon as possible. This implies a lack of confident solution for future relations across the Taiwan Strait. Even if “maintaining status quo, move toward unification” and
“maintaining status quo, move toward independence” are combined with “unification as soon as possible” and “independence as soon as possible” respectively, the number of people having clear direction of unification or independence are still not significant.
On the other hand, instead of choosing either direction, majority of people tend to choose maintaining the status quo and decide at a later date or maintaining the status quo forever. These two items combine more than 55% to 60% (or even higher), of respondents in the decade long survey. So far, the status quo seems to be a desirable situation and majority of people in Taiwan are willing to keep it at present time.
Hence, what Figure 1 tells is not people’s choose between unification or independence, but people’s choose beyond the two items, maintaining the status quo.
Nevertheless, saying maintaining the status quo is the common denominator of majority people in Taiwan is not satisfactory. One question appear immediately.
This question addresses to the nature of people’s choice, ie., the perceived meanings of unification, independence and maintaining the status quo. In some way, majority of people in Taiwan are reluctant to make a solid choice between unification and independence. This reluctance deserves further exploration. Choosing to maintain the status quo does not tell much about the final solution for cross Strait relations. So it is crucial to examine the meanings behind the chosen item.
In order to answer this question, the method of focus group interviews is used.
Empirical survey data often falls short of providing direct causal inferences in research. More often than not, empirical survey data provides only associational relations between research questions. Focus group interview can be seen as a data-collection technique aiming at exploring participants’ causal inference. By way of group discussions, participants are in a more comfortable environment to express their perceptions, attitudes, and affections toward certain political issues (Edmunds, 1999). The data of focus group interview used in this essay was collected by the
Election Study Center in April 2006. Four panels of interview were conducted and divided by two variables: provincial origins (Mainlander vs. Minnan) and age (below or above 40 years old). So, there were four groups: participants have Mainlander origins and are 40 years old or above; participants have Mainlander origins and are below 40 years old; participants have Minnan origins and are 40 years old or above;
and participants have Minnan origins and are below 40 years old. The four groups are assigned to the four panels respectively and around 6 to 8 participants attended in each of the panels.
Results of Focus Group Interview
Unlike previous data are collected by quantitative strategy, focus group interview uses a qualitative research strategy to collect data. One of the comparative advantages of this qualitative strategy is it capabilities of providing causal inferences for certain events. It is obvious that maintaining the status quo has been people’s dominant preference on the issue of unification vs. independence. Unfortunately, the high proportion of maintaining the status quo tells little information about how people perceive the nature of maintaining the status quo and why people maintain these attitudes? In this section, results of focus group interview will be utilized to provide some clues of why and how people reach their preference on maintaining the status quo, or on unification, or on independence.
Why Maintaining the Status Quo?
Multiple reasons have contributed to people’s choosing maintaining the status quo. One popular reason is to avoid military confrontation across the Strait. The other often heard reason is China’s incapable of proposing persuasive solution. In the interviews, participants choose maintaining the status quo are due to a fear of Communist invasion if Taiwan declares independence on the one hand and oppose to China’s unification proposals such as “one country two systems” on the other hand.
Additionally, participant is expecting China to transform itself into a Taiwan-like regime in the future. So the choice of maintaining status quo is a wait-and-see strategy.
“China has openly declared the occasions of unifying Taiwan by force, and will never balk at bloodbathing Taiwan…. So I have always believed that if Taiwan chooses independence then China will engage in military invasion without hesitation…. That’s why I insist not to choose Taiwan independence. Secondly, unification of both sides is good, but not now, because the time is not ripened…. I am not able to accept the idea of one
country two systems. So, what should we do? Time will prove everything.
It is not thirty years or fifty years, it is when China can turn into Taiwan’s current situation. Simply speaking, they are political democratization, education popularization, and economic freedom. When everyone feels that Mainland China is identical to Taiwan, then why not unification? Till then, it is a nature course for unification and majority of the population will agree for unification.” (04231800_Chao)
Similar arguments also address to an uncertain future of China and make the issue more complex. Choosing Unification or independence is an annoying issue.
Economic development in China, thought admirable, is problematic. Moreover, beneath the economic prosperity, there are serious social problems in China. Likewise, participant’s evaluation of Hong Kong’s returning to China is not positive. Therefore, to some degree, participants do not have other feasible options but to choose maintaining the status quo.
“Because I really think it is the only way we can do. Even though Mainland China’s economy grows rapidly now, its speed is too quick. In fact, the management of local government is not good. Also, they have wide differences between the rich and the poor, and so is education…. If Taiwan and Mainland China are going to unify, it is not good for Taiwan…. Even though Mainland China will grow and become stronger in the future, it is a future situation. I am not able to draw the conclusion now. This is the reason that I choose maintaining the status quo.”
(04151800_Chai)
In addition to the differences of economic situation across the Strait, other reason for participants to choose maintaining the status quo is a difference of human characters between the two sides. Some participants mention their experiences in China and have a closer observation and deeper thinking on the people’s personalities in China. These experiences mainly come from participant’s tour or work in China. In general, the conclusions are negative. In particular, the experiences of China’s Cultural Revolution have continued to affect participant’s perceptions of people’s qualities in China. These perceptions become crucial sources for participant to choose maintaining the status quo instead of unification.
”I think we should maintain the status quo and looking for proper
thought and qualities. Surly, there are good people in Mainland China but there are also plenty of bad guys. What I mean bad qualities are Mainlander’s skills of struggling against each other. They are very good at aligning secondary enemy to fight against primary enemy.”
(04151800_Soong)
Also regarding to the differences of thoughts between the two sides, one participant speaks out directly that the differences of daily lives also obstruct unification. In particular, she cites an example of Chinese characters used on both sides. In Taiwan, original form of Chinese character has been kept intact for centuries.
However, Mainland China has adopted a new simplified version of Chinese character.
For this participant, Chinese character is an important symbol of culture. The composition and pronunciation of each character can easily correspond to its culture meaning. Taiwan has maintained this original form of character and thus is able to continue traditional Chinese culture. As for the new form of character in China, even though it is easy to write, is too easy to carry traditional Chinese culture.
“There are really differences of thoughts and qualities between the two sides. For example, the use of simplified Chinese character is a great shock for me. Simplified Chinese characters are not cordial enough and difficult to understand. Such as the word “noodle” in the original form of Chinese character is made up by “wheat” and “face”, while in the simplified form, there is only “face” left. Unfortunately, the new form of character means nothing…. As time goes by, it will produce great impacts on our culture…. If both sides unify together, this will be a big problem. I think cultural unification is more important than political unification.
(04151800_Hua)2
Finally, one notably issue is maintaining the status quo is not everyone’s first choice. By contrast, participants may change their preferences for different reasons.
Living experiences, for example, are important for people’s changing preferences.
One participant reveals that he is a pro-unification before a change to maintaining the status quo. The reasons for his swing come from the experiences of his Hong Kong friend. His Hong Kong friend suffers from discrimination by people from Mainland China after 1997. Meanwhile, this participant begins to contemplate why there are
2 Original Chinese character “noodle” (麵) takes both of the component and sound together. The meaning of this component is wheat (in Chinese, 麥) that specifies the major ingredients of noodle,
always voices for Taiwan independence. He concludes that there must be some justifiable reasons, even thought he may not completely agree with, for the idea of Taiwan independence. Both experiences make him away from unification.
Nonetheless, he does not support for Taiwan independence at this time. For him, if Taiwan can become better and better, then he might support for Taiwan independence.
Yet, Taiwan is still not qualified for independence since everything is not going well.
In short, the participant does not exclude the possibility of supporting Taiwan independence. Unfortunately, it is not a present tense, but a future anticipation that based on a good development on the island (04151800_Chai).
Natures of Maintaining the Status Quo
Independence and maintaining the status quo share many similar attributes. For some pro-independence participants, maintaining the status quo is similar to maintaining the status and independent later. But the reasons for this preference vary.
One of the reasons is unification needs many auxiliary efforts and many options are to be examined closely. Taiwan does not have enough ability to strike a good deal of unification with Mainland China now. By contrast, independence is much easier and it is the way we are right now. (04231400_Chien).
Other participants choose maintaining the status quo also maintains an open mind for Taiwan independence. Likewise, moving toward Taiwan independence is not a present tense, but a future-oriented anticipation. The key would be good leadership and better political-economic development in Taiwan. In other words, it is Taiwan’s current situation, chiefly economic and political disorder, that puzzles participant’s future anticipation. Even though an independent Taiwan is acceptable in the future, the pre-conditions will be good leadership. Only when the preconditions are realized,
Other participants choose maintaining the status quo also maintains an open mind for Taiwan independence. Likewise, moving toward Taiwan independence is not a present tense, but a future-oriented anticipation. The key would be good leadership and better political-economic development in Taiwan. In other words, it is Taiwan’s current situation, chiefly economic and political disorder, that puzzles participant’s future anticipation. Even though an independent Taiwan is acceptable in the future, the pre-conditions will be good leadership. Only when the preconditions are realized,