New National Archives Director Warns Over Hijacking of Tangwai Concept

Newly appointed Academia Historica President Chen Tsui-lien took office this month and immediately pointed out in an interview that the "substitution of concepts" has become increasingly severe in recent years, with some even proposing the formation of a "tangwai grand alliance" to redefine the political spectrum. Speaking from her professional perspective as a historian, Chen reminded the public that the distortion of concepts not only skews historical memory but could also impact the communication foundation of contemporary politics. Her remarks quickly became a focal point in political circles because the term "tangwai" (outside the party) carries special historical significance within Taiwan's political context.

"Tangwai" first appeared during the martial law period, referring to political groups and figures outside the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) that were not officially recognized. At the time, tangwai forces often campaigned for democracy, freedom, and human rights, forming an opposition to the KMT. After the lifting of martial law, the concept of tangwai gradually faded, becoming a general term to describe non-ruling parties or third forces. However, with changes in cross-strait relations and the domestic political landscape, the scope and connotation of "tangwai" have been reinterpreted by different camps. Chen believes that relabeling "tangwai" as a "grand alliance" amounts to turning a term that originally possessed historical criticality into a propaganda tool for political alliances, and that this substitution of concepts weakens the objectivity of history education.

The KMT immediately raised questions, pointing out that Chen Tsui-lien began defending the ruling authorities right after taking office, and even labeled the opposition party as part of the "ruling authorities." A KMT spokesperson emphasized that as the leader of Academia Historica, she should maintain academic neutrality and avoid taking sides in political controversies. This accusation also reflects the pressure the KMT faces in the Legislative Yuan and local elections, particularly recent intra-party calls to consolidate opposition forces to form an effective check and balance against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The KMT's response is not only a criticism of individual remarks, but also reveals vigilance against the reuse of the "tangwai" concept.

The DPP responded through caucus whip Chuang Jui-hsiung, clarifying that what President Chen discussed was the concept of "tangwai" within its historical context, rather than targeting the current opposition's "grand alliance" plan. Chuang emphasized that historical scholars' analyses should focus on past political environments and movement contexts, and should not be simplified into current partisan attacks and defenses. Through this response, the DPP intends to pull the discussion back to an academic basis and prevent the concept from being politicized, while also demonstrating that the ruling party still maintains a certain degree of influence over the narrative of history.

Behind this controversy lies the sensitivity and utilization of historical vocabulary within Taiwan's political ecology. If "tangwai" is repackaged under the name of a "grand alliance," it could rewrite voters' perceptions of opposition forces, further impacting future electoral layouts and policy discussions. On the other hand, if statements from academic institutions are over-interpreted by political forces, it may also erode public trust in historical materials and historical perspectives. Therefore, how to maintain the independence of historical research while preventing concepts from being politically hijacked has become a key contemporary public issue.

In summary, Chen Tsui-lien's warning reminds us that the precise use of concepts is not only a basic requirement for academia, but also a prerequisite for democratic dialogue. Whether it is the KMT's accusations or the DPP's clarifications, both show that the historical term "tangwai" still holds high political value in the contemporary era. If a consensus is to be built within a diverse political environment in the future, relevant parties must respect historical contexts and avoid arbitrary conversions of concepts to prevent affecting the rational discussion of public issues.