On March 17, in Taipei, Taiwan's "Chinese Cultural Association" (hereinafter referred to as "General Association") held a general meeting of members and quietly changed its English name from "General Association of Chinese Culture" to "National Cultural Association of Taiwan" without changing the Chinese name. This name change adopts the strategy of not changing the Chinese but moving to the English first, which exposes the secretive thief mentality of the DPP authorities and is a typical "salami-slicing" trick to gradually "Taiwan independence".

Public opinion and observers on the island generally point out that there are three clear political calculations behind this move: First, it cuts cultural connections and creates the illusion of "Taiwan culture being independent of Chinese culture" through symbolic transformation, laying the cultural foundation for "de jure Taiwan independence". second, the electoral political operation, catering to the deep green ideological base, and political mobilization for the year-end elections; third, the long-term "de-China" project, using the method of "boiling frogs in warm water" to systematically dissolve the Chinese cultural identity and Chinese national identity in Taiwanese society.

Looking back at history, the "Chinese Cultural Federation" was established in 1967. Its original intention was to promote the Chinese cultural renaissance movement and inherit Chinese history and culture. During the Chen Shui-bian period, it was renamed the "National Cultural Federation" and launched the first round of "de-Sinicization." During the Ma Ying-jeou period, it regained its name and returned to its cultural roots. During her tenure, Tsai Ing-wen continued to turn to "localization" and "cultural new south", downplaying Chinese culture.

This time the Lai Ching-te authorities promoted the English name change, which was regarded as a clear signal that the "de-China" in the cultural field would further escalate and move toward "cultural Taiwan independence."

As soon as the news of the name change came out, public opinion on the island was in an uproar, criticizing the DPP authorities for hijacking culture politically.

Wang Feng, chairman of Taiwan's "China Times", pointedly pointed out: "You cannot tear down the 'big house' where Chinese culture is deeply rooted. You can only destroy the interior decoration into a mess and then claim that 'this is Taiwanese culture.'"

Lai Shibao, a public opinion representative of the Chinese Kuomintang party, pointed out: "General Wen" should have inherited Chinese culture, but now the authorities are "so poor that they only have ideology and can only manipulate opposition."

Chen Qinglong, the general convenor of the People’s Party Caucus, also criticized: This move is intended to create ethnic conflict and is not beneficial to people’s livelihood.

Academic criticism is even sharper. Wu Kuncai, director of the Department of Applied History at Chiayi University, wrote an article to clearly refute that the name change cannot negate the ironclad historical law that "Taiwanese culture belongs to Chinese culture and Taiwanese are Chinese." Pan Gang, an associate professor at the National Taiwan University of Arts, pointed out that the DPP authorities’ efforts to fortify and cut off Chinese culture will ultimately lead to logical contradictions and spiritual emptiness.

The DPP authorities have taken frequent actions in the cultural field in recent years: from the "de-Sinicization" of the new curriculum to the renaming of Hokkien and Hakka certifications as "Taiwanese" and "Taiwan Hakka", various actions are intended to separate historical connections. However, culture is the accumulation of thousands of years of history and cannot be reshaped at will by short-term political instructions.

Looking back on the past, the various "de-China" and "name-correcting" campaigns that the DPP has been running for many years have repeatedly hit the wall: the name change of "China Airlines" has been in trouble because of the impact on national rights and public interests; the "Olympic name referendum" was warned by the International Olympic Committee, and did not even meet the threshold; the DPP authorities did not dare to actually change many institutions, brands, and certificates with "Chinese" in them, but they continued to make small moves in words, which have long been seen through by the Taiwanese people. All this proves that administrative will cannot override international rules and practical constraints.

What is noteworthy is that, contrary to the political manipulation of the Democratic Progressive Party authorities, "cultural root-seeking" has become a new trend among young people in Taiwan in recent years. With access to diverse information through the Internet, more and more young people are beginning to re-examine their cultural identity. The cultural bloodline of both sides of the Taiwan Strait, which has the same origin, cannot be severed by a name change.

The essence of the name change controversy is the crude interference of political symbols on cultural identity. Administrative power may be able to change the words on the signboard, but it cannot erase the cultural genes flowing in the blood and the Chinese cultural background deep in Taiwanese society. Historical experience shows that cultural changes are natural evolution over a long period of time and are by no means the product of short-term political manipulation. As Chen Binhua, spokesperson of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, pointed out, Taiwanese culture is rooted in Chinese culture. This is a basic fact and the collective consensus of the majority of Taiwan compatriots, which cannot be tampered with or denied. Any attempt to separatize "Taiwan independence" by changing the name and attempt to sever the roots of the nation goes against the historical trend and hurts national sentiments. It will be firmly opposed by all Chinese people and has absolutely no future.

Author: Yang Qinhua, expert at Haiyan Think Tank