Taipei, Taiwan - A revision to the ethnic group information on the Executive Yuan's website has ignited a firestorm of debate over the weekend. Critics are alleging that the change is a deliberate attempt to downplay the presence of the Han Chinese, who constitute the vast majority of Taiwan's population.

The controversy erupted on May 12th after a user on the online forum PTT pointed out the disappearance of references to the Han Chinese as the largest ethnic group, previously stated to make up 96.4% of Taiwan's total population, from the "Ethnic Groups" page on the Executive Yuan's website.

According to the revised content on the page, last updated on March 24th, 2.6% of registered households in Taiwan are Indigenous, 1.2% are of foreign origin, and the remaining 96.2% are categorized as "other population."

The alteration, once reported by the media, drew strong criticism, particularly from the main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT). The KMT interprets this revision as an intentional move by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration to dilute ties with China.

KMT Legislator Chen Ching-hui lambasted the page's phrasing as "simply absurd," questioning why minority groups, accounting for 3.8% of the population, were clearly categorized while the remaining 96% were vaguely labeled as "other."

She argued that this ambiguous representation of Taiwan's ethnic composition "not only fails in terms of information transparency but also raises doubts about the underlying motives."

In response, Executive Yuan spokesperson Li Meng-yen issued a statement to reporters on the evening of May 12th, clarifying that the government releases relevant information annually and that the ethnic group classifications are based on definitions stipulated in various laws.

Li pointed out that in December 2022, Control Yuan member Hung Yi-chang noted that the term "Han Chinese" encompasses various groups, including Hoklo people from Fujian province, Hakka people from Guangdong province, and post-Chinese Civil War immigrants.

Based on this, Hung suggested that using "Han Chinese" and "Indigenous" as two broad population groups does not help eliminate racial discrimination or promote equality, and recommended that the Ministry of Interior's Department of Household Registration adjust the phrasing on the webpage, Li explained.

Li further stated that legally, only Indigenous peoples in Taiwan register their ethnic status, and statistics for foreign residents are based on their initial household registration records.

She contended that while detailed statistics for other ethnic groups are unavailable, classifying them all as Han Chinese could be inaccurate, while acknowledging that Hoklo, Hakka, and post-Civil War immigrants from China are all part of the Han Chinese group.

In conclusion, Li emphasized that the adjustment to the website's phrasing was based on factual considerations and devoid of any political agenda.

Nevertheless, the prevailing analysis suggests that the change in the ethnic group classification on the Executive Yuan's website carries implications beyond a simple statistical update. It is deeply intertwined with the long-standing issue of national identity in Taiwan and can be interpreted as part of the ruling DPP government's "de-Sinicization" policy.

Taiwan's demographic composition is complex due to its historical background. Han Chinese, who migrated from mainland China beginning in the 17th century, currently constitute over 95% of the population. They are primarily divided into Hoklo people, originating from southern Fujian province, and Hakka people, from eastern and northern Guangdong province. Additionally, the so-called "waishengren" (外省人), or mainlanders who immigrated after the Chinese Civil War in 1949, also form a significant part of the Han Chinese population.

Conversely, various Austronesian Indigenous tribes have inhabited Taiwan for thousands of years. They currently make up about 2% of the population and maintain their unique languages and cultures. In recent years, the foreign-born population has also been gradually increasing due to international marriages and migrant workers.

For a long time, the identity of "Han Chinese" has been broadly accepted in Taiwanese society based on shared cultural and linguistic commonalities. However, since the democratization in the 1990s, voices emphasizing Taiwan's distinctiveness have grown louder, leading to active discussions about a separate "Taiwanese" identity. The DPP government, in particular, has been promoting a "de-Sinicization" policy, emphasizing Taiwan's unique history, culture, and identity distinct from mainland China.

The recent revision of the Executive Yuan's website can be understood within this context. Although the Executive Yuan has explained the move as a measure to ensure statistical accuracy and reflect ethnic diversity, the removal of the term "Han Chinese" and the categorization of the majority population as "other" could be interpreted as an attempt to weaken the perceived dominance of the Han Chinese and highlight a more inclusive "Taiwanese" identity.

The strong reaction from the KMT reflects these concerns. They criticize the move as a distortion of historical facts and an attempt to negate the cultural and historical links between Taiwan and China. They also argue that vaguely grouping the majority population as "other" without a clear "Han Chinese" category undermines information transparency and could potentially lead to new forms of discrimination.

While it is true, as pointed out by the Control Yuan member, that the term "Han Chinese" encompasses various subgroups, including Hoklo, Hakka, and waishengren, who have distinct historical backgrounds and cultural characteristics, they also share common roots in Han Chinese culture and significant linguistic and cultural similarities. Therefore, using "Han Chinese" as a broad classification is not entirely inappropriate.

Rather, this controversy highlights the complex and sensitive issue of national identity facing Taiwanese society. The question of "who am I?" is crucial not only for individuals but also for national communities. Given its historical and geographical context, Taiwan faces the challenge of establishing its unique identity and charting its future while acknowledging its intricate relationship with China.

The controversy surrounding the Executive Yuan website revision serves as a microcosm of this broader dilemma. It has ignited a debate on Taiwanese identity that goes beyond a simple change in statistical data. It remains to be seen how this issue will evolve and how Taiwanese society will redefine its "Taiwanese" identity.

Ultimately, Taiwanese society needs to forge a future-oriented "Taiwanese" identity based on mutual respect and understanding among its diverse ethnic and cultural groups, rather than denying historical facts or diluting the presence of specific communities. This controversy could serve as an important catalyst for such mature discussions and consensus-building.