30-Second Overview: The Indigenous name rectification movement of the 1990s appeared to revolve around a single label, but its core was whether the state could continue to describe a people using names left by rulers. The movement demanded that the state recognize the Indigenous peoples' right to name themselves, organize, and determine their future. Following the establishment of the Taiwan Indigenous Rights Promotion Association in 1984, the demand for name rectification became increasingly intertwined with land rights, autonomy, political participation, and cultural preservation. The constitutional amendment struggles of 1991 and 1992 did not succeed immediately. In 1994, the Constitutional Amendments changed "Mountain Natives" to "Indigenous," and in 1997, "Indigenous Peoples"—a term carrying the weight of collective rights—was inscribed in the Constitution. This path traversed streets, churches, tribes, the National Convention, and the Legislative Yuan; the institutional outcome was formed through long-term negotiation across multiple fields.
"Mountain Natives" Was Not a Neutral Old Term
The state naming a group may seem like administrative jargon, but it actually determines who is registered, who receives resources, who is treated as an individual, and who is treated as a collective. The English history page of the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) compiles the names used by different regimes for Taiwan's Indigenous peoples: from "Fan" (barbarians) in the Qing Dynasty, to "Kaohokazu" (High Mountain Tribe) during the Japanese colonial period, to "Shanbao" (Mountain Natives) used by the post-war Nationalist government. These names were determined by rulers and placed ethnic groups into administrative categories. 1
The problem with "Shanbao" (Mountain Natives) lies not only in its discriminatory connotation but also in how it turned Indigenous peoples into objects requiring management. The "Mountain" in the term binds the group to a geographical location, as if their political identity is only related to remote mountainous areas. This classification cannot fully describe the Puyuma (Pingpu) groups, urban Indigenous peoples, or those who have left their traditional territories to live elsewhere. It also fails to express the distinct histories, languages, institutions, and collective memories of each group. The name rectification movement demanded that the state recognize: Indigenous peoples are not merely categories in administrative forms; they also have the right to participate in determining their own name and political position.
According to the Council of Indigenous Peoples, on December 29, 1984, Indigenous intellectuals established the Taiwan Indigenous Rights Promotion Association, using the term "Indigenous" chosen by the community itself, and placing anti-stigma, land, culture, and political status within the same rights framework. The Declaration of Rights for Taiwan Indigenous Peoples, published in 1987, further pushed this self-naming into the language of collective rights. 1 Academic research published by the Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, also views the 1984 organization as a crucial starting point for the name rectification movement, pointing out how media and state names affect the way Taiwan's Indigenous peoples are understood. 2
Caption: Photo by Chongkian in 2013 of the Dadaocheng Building. The Wikimedia Commons file page indicates CC BY-SA 3.0. This is the administrative building of the specialized agency after the name rectification, and cannot be used as a photo of the 1990s protest scene. The article uses it to present the material location of the state's specialized agency and administrative space as it later formed. 3
Name Rectification Was Never a Single Demand
If the name rectification movement is only written as "changing Mountain Natives to Indigenous," it misses the true political content of the movement. When Indigenous peoples demanded name rectification during the National Convention's constitutional amendment process in 1991, common slogans included "Right to Name, Land Rights, Autonomy." Data on Indigenous Peoples' Day compiled by the Taitung County Government records that on June 23, 1994, Indigenous groups held the third large-scale march for name rectification, land rights, and autonomy in front of the Presidential Office, with 37 groups responding. 4
These three terms are interconnected. The right to name demands that the state recognize the subject identity of Indigenous peoples. Land rights demand that the state recognize traditional territories are not spaces that can be disposed of arbitrarily. Autonomy demands that Indigenous peoples participate in decision-making in their own social, cultural, and livelihood spheres as political subjects, rather than merely accepting state guarantees. Without land and autonomy, name rectification may remain only at the level of IDs and legal articles. Without name rectification, land and autonomy struggle to find a subject in the state system to recognize these rights.
| Movement Language | Political Issue to Address | Possible Institutional Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Name | Who has the right to determine the name and identity of the ethnic group | Constitutional terminology, household registration, administrative agencies, and public education |
| Land Rights | Are traditional territories merely land managed by the state? | Land policy, consultation and consent, traditional territories, and remedies |
| Autonomy | Do Indigenous peoples possess collective political decision-making capacity? | Autonomy systems, ethnic parliaments, local and central authorities |
| Cultural and Linguistic Rights | Who determines how history, language, and knowledge are preserved | Education, language policy, cultural assets, and media |
The Council of Indigenous Peoples' later explanation of Indigenous Peoples' Day also places name rectification and self-determination, autonomy, land, and cultural rights within the same historical context. This connection gradually became the common language of the movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and later entered policy discussions. 1
The Door of the National Convention: The Demand for Name Rectification Was First Blocked
On April 15, 1991, Indigenous peoples launched their first name rectification protest during the National Convention's constitutional amendment process. According to the CIP's English article, at that time, Indigenous peoples demanded that "Mountain Natives" be changed to "Indigenous," viewing this demand as an expression of collective will. However, the first constitutional amendment did not adopt the name rectification demand; the Constitutional Amendments still retained the term "Mountain Natives." 1
The significance of this failure lies in making it clear to activists that political sympathy does not equal institutional recognition. Indigenous peoples could be called objects needing education, assistance, and welfare, but as long as the legal text still used the name given by the state, Indigenous peoples had not truly become speaking subjects in the Constitution. The constitutional amendment procedure may seem like a legal technicality, but it actually determines whose self-description can enter the state's highest norms.
During the second constitutional amendment in 1992, the name rectification movement launched protests again, still without a complete response. This process also illustrates that the movement did not expect to change the law with just one large-scale march. Indigenous groups had to repeatedly appear in the sightlines of the National Convention, the Presidential Office, and public media, and had to make different ethnic groups, political parties, and state agencies understand that name rectification involves the power relationship of the state's long-term description and management of Indigenous peoples, and cannot be reduced to a special privilege.
Source: Council of Indigenous Peoples, Presidential Office, Indigenous Peoples Rights Handbook, Taitung County Government
The Constitution Changed the Name, but Rights Were Still Outside the Door
The CIP's official English article records that on April 10, 1994, then-President Lee Teng-hui first used the term "Indigenous" for this group at the Indigenous Cultural Conference held in Pingtung. On April 14, the KMT's constitutional amendment planning group put the content of changing "Mountain Natives" into the constitutional amendment draft. The large march on June 23 brought the demands for name rectification, land, and autonomy together to the front of the Presidential Office. On July 1, Lee Teng-hui met with representatives of the Indigenous constitutional movement, promising support for name rectification. 1
On July 28, 1994, the National Convention passed the Third Constitutional Amendments. On August 1, the President promulgated and implemented the constitutional amendments, officially changing "Mountain Natives" to "Indigenous" in constitutional terminology. The Presidential Office's page on the Third Constitutional Amendments preserves the institutional data of the amendments and the clauses on Indigenous political participation at that time. 5
This was an important achievement, but it was not the endpoint for all demands. The articles of the third constitutional amendment mainly dealt with Indigenous identity, political participation, education, cultural preservation, social welfare, and assistance in undertakings; it did not complete the confirmation of traditional territories, autonomy systems, or complete collective decision-making power in one go. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Handbook also lists the 1994 name rectification, the 1996 establishment of the CIP, the 1997 Indigenous Peoples clauses, and the 2005 Indigenous Peoples Basic Act separately, reminding readers not to mistake the change of a name for the resolution of all institutional issues. 6
Gao Zhengzhi and "Re-vote": Political Risk in the Legislative Field
The name rectification movement cannot only be written as a story of street pressure on the government. In the National Convention hall on July 28, 1994, Indigenous representatives had to deal with a very specific procedural crisis: how to obtain enough votes for the articles, how to negotiate versions from different political parties, and how to write representative quotas and ethnic classifications into the Constitution.
A 2024 in-depth report by The News Lens (Guancha) returned to the July 28, 1994, National Convention transcript preserved in the Legislative Yuan's National Library, pointing out that after the relevant articles failed two votes, Puyuma National Convention delegate Gao Zhengzhi proposed a "re-vote." Lin Zheng'er was responsible for the co-sponsorship, which required obtaining the signatures of 30 National Convention delegates to form a case; finally, 31 people signed. The meeting records left scenes of "dispute in the audience," "surrounding the rostrum and booing," and multiple interruptions of speeches, indicating that name rectification was not quietly gifted by the state. 7
This detail also complicates political responsibility. Gao Zhengzhi's re-vote gave the name rectification articles a chance to re-enter the agenda, but the version that finally passed was still the result of compromises among different political parties. The Guancha report points out that DPP National Convention delegates hoped to break the classification of mountain and plain by using "Taiwan Indigenous Peoples," while the KMT version retained the framework of Mountain Indigenous and Plain Indigenous. The articles that finally passed could not be entirely equivalent to the version initially imagined by the activists. 7
Therefore, the success of 1994 simultaneously contained victory and incompleteness. The state finally no longer used "Mountain Natives" as the constitutional name, but the legal text still left issues of classification, representative quotas, and land rights. Name rectification sent Indigenous peoples into the Constitution, but it did not automatically give all Indigenous peoples equally full speaking space in the Constitution.
From Individual Identity to Collective Subject: The Weight of the Plural Term
The "Indigenous" of 1994 was an important term for individual and group identity; the "Indigenous Peoples" of 1997 further brought out the meaning of collective rights. The CIP's official article explains that during the fourth constitutional amendment, the plural term "Indigenous Peoples," carrying the connotation of collective rights, replaced "Indigenous." 1 This plural term pushed the position of the political subject toward collective rights.
"Indigenous" can refer to a citizen with Indigenous identity. "Indigenous Peoples" demands that the state recognize the ethnic group as a collective, possessing rights to history, culture, land, autonomy, and political organization. This language of collective rights later connected with the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act. The Legal Information Database of the Executive Yuan's legal page preserves the full text of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act, which places issues of Indigenous identity, traditional culture, land, natural resources, autonomy, education, language, and consultation and consent into the same statutory framework. 8
The introduction to the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act on the Academia Sinica Indigenous Peoples Historical and Cultural Knowledge Network also points out that during the 1994 constitutional amendment, Indigenous representatives had proposed amendments on ethnic recognition, autonomy, a central specialized agency, an ethnic parliament, and the right to traditional naming, which were not all included at the time. Although the 1997 constitutional amendment expanded the Indigenous Peoples clauses, it still cannot be understood as the completion of all movement demands. 9
From Name Rectification to the CIP: The Administrative Agency Is Not the Endpoint
Caption: Photo by Rico Shen in 2008 of the opening of the Indigenous Peoples Craft Exhibition. The Wikimedia Commons file page indicates CC BY-SA 4.0. This is the administrative and cultural policy scene after name rectification, and cannot be used as a photo of the 1990s protest scene. It presents how the specialized agency took over cultural and rights issues in subsequent policies. 10
In 1996, the Executive Yuan established the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP), giving the political subject after name rectification a specialized agency at the central level. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Handbook lists the establishment of the CIP in 1996 as an important follow-up to the name rectification movement, connecting it with the 1994 name rectification, the 1997 constitutional amendment, and the 2005 Indigenous Peoples Basic Act into an institutional timeline. 6
The appearance of a specialized agency has two sides. On one hand, administrative responsibility becomes clearer; Indigenous education, culture, social welfare, and land policies are no longer only scattered across different ministries. On the other hand, Indigenous rights may be re-absorbed into a set of policy classifications managed by the central agency. The name rectification movement originally demanded subjectivity and autonomy; if the administrative agency only is responsible for distributing subsidies, managing cultural activities, or producing statistics, it may turn "Indigenous Peoples" back into objects of governance.
The importance of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act lies in writing Indigenous rights as legal responsibilities the state should abide by, rather than remaining only at the level of welfare policies. However, the passage of the law does not mean rights have been implemented. Land definition, traditional territories, resource development, autonomy systems, and consultation and consent all require subsequent regulations, administrative decisions, court judgments, and local negotiations. The historical significance of the name rectification movement lies precisely in making these subsequent controversies no longer describable only as "mountain management" or "minority population welfare."
Indigenous Peoples' Day: Memory Is Fixed, But May Also Be Simplified
Caption: Photo by jeffreyjhang in 2013 of the Wushe Incident Memorial Park. The Wikimedia Commons file page indicates CC BY-SA 2.0. This is a later-formed historical memory space and cannot serve as visual evidence of the 1930 Wushe Incident or the 1990s name rectification protests. It is used to illustrate how Indigenous history is preserved in memorials, parks, and public education. 11
The Executive Yuan passed relevant regulations in 2005, designating August 1 as Indigenous Peoples' Day. This day corresponds to the date the Constitutional Amendments were promulgated and implemented on August 1, 1994. The CIP's official article points out that Indigenous Peoples' Day commemorates the change of name while reminding society of the self-determination, land, autonomy, and cultural rights behind name rectification. 1
The memorial day provides a fixed public time for reflection. Schools, government agencies, and media can discuss the history of name rectification again on August 1 each year, making it difficult for the institutional background of the old term "Mountain Natives" to be forgotten. But the memorial day may also compress more than a decade of struggle into a beautiful date. Only talking about August 1, readers may not see the establishment of the organization in 1984, the rights declaration in 1987, the failed constitutional amendments in 1991 and 1992, the street march in 1994, and the risk of Gao Zhengzhi proposing a re-vote in the legislative field.
A Guancha report quoting Gao Zhengzhi's pre-death remarks points out that the three characters "Indigenous" at that time not only touched legal terminology, but also touched the anxiety of different ethnic groups regarding Taiwan's history, land resources, and identity positions. 7 This uncomfortable part should be preserved. Name rectification was not a consensus naturally formed after everyone understood it simultaneously. The process involved disputes, discrimination, negotiation, and political exchange. Only by leaving the conflict intact will Indigenous Peoples' Day not become a depoliticized festival slogan.
What a Name Change Changed, and What It Has Not Yet Changed
The most direct result of the name rectification movement is that the state formally abandoned "Mountain Natives" as the constitutional name, adopting the name claimed by Indigenous peoples themselves. This change affects identity documents, legal texts, educational content, administrative agencies, and public language. It also requires the state to explain in the Constitution the political participation, education, culture, and social welfare guarantees of Indigenous peoples.
A deeper result is that name rectification turned the question of "who are Taiwan's Indigenous peoples" from a classification problem of the rulers into a political problem that Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in deciding. This shift connects later Indigenous autonomy, traditional territories, ethnic naming, language revitalization, and cultural asset controversies. Name rectification brought more issues to the surface. The state cannot merely recognize subjectivity in the name, while continuing to treat Indigenous peoples as protected, managed objects in land and decision-making.
But name rectification did not automatically change reality. Indigenous land rights still require clear legal procedures and administrative execution. Autonomy still requires specific institutional design; the affirmation in the constitutional articles itself is insufficient to complete the system. Indigenous languages still face pressures in education, usage fields, and intergenerational transmission. State recognition of multiculturalism does not equal that every ethnic group has equal bargaining power in resource allocation and policy design.
| Time | Completed Institutional Changes | Problems Not Yet Solved by the Name Itself |
|---|---|---|
| 1984–1987 | Formation of Indigenous rights organizations and rights declarations | How the movement obtains sustained political representation |
| 1991–1992 | Name rectification demands entered the constitutional amendment struggle | The state still did not accept the renaming of "Mountain Natives" |
| 1994 | "Indigenous" written into the Constitution | Land, autonomy, and ethnic classification still have disputes |
| 1996–1997 | Establishment of the CIP; "Indigenous Peoples" enters the Constitution | How the specialized agency avoids re-centralizing governance |
| Post-2005 | The Indigenous Peoples Basic Act provides a rights framework | Traditional territories, autonomy, consultation and consent, and implementation still require institutional work |
The core political question left by the name rectification movement is whether the state, after recognizing a name, truly changed its governance method for this group. If the name changes, but land decision-making still does not allow Indigenous participation, autonomy remains only a declaration, and language and history are still marginalized by mainstream education, then name rectification has only completed the first step of subjectivity.
After Writing the Name into the Constitution
The Indigenous name rectification movement added a branch line to Taiwan's democratization that cannot be omitted. Democracy includes electoral systems, party competition, and direct presidential elections, but also requires the state to recognize that different groups have the right to describe themselves, preserve their institutions, and participate in deciding land and public resources. From this perspective, the 1994 constitutional amendment belongs to constitutional reform itself and is an indispensable part of Taiwan's democratization.
Gao Zhengzhi's proposal for a re-vote in the 1994 legislative field, street groups' demands for name rectification, land, and autonomy in front of the Presidential Office, and Indigenous organizations' establishment of rights language in the 1980s, these actions collectively turned a name originally decided by the state into a public controversy. The state's later ability to write "Indigenous Peoples" into the Constitution stems from long-term political questioning: Who has the right to name, who has the right to act as a political subject, and who has the right to determine their own future?
Looking at the Indigenous name rectification movement today, August 1 is unsuitable to be treated as a completed period; it is more suitable to be read as a comma. It marks the exit of "Mountain Natives" from the Constitution and reminds later generations that name, land, autonomy, language, and historical subjectivity are still interconnected. After name rectification is completed, the truly difficult work begins: making the collective subject recognized by the Constitution visible and audible in daily policies and public decision-making, and possessing actual decision-making power.
Further Reading
- The Origin of Indigenous Peoples' Day — The English history page of the Council of Indigenous Peoples, suitable for grasping the complete timeline of the name rectification movement first.
- 81 Indigenous Peoples' Day: Reviewing the Hard Journey of Name Rectification 30 Years Ago — An in-depth report by The News Lens (Guancha), reconstructing the legislative field process of Gao Zhengzhi and the National Convention's re-vote.
- Indigenous Peoples Rights Handbook — The rights and institutional timeline published by the Council of Indigenous Peoples.
References
- The Origin and Significance of August 1st, the Indigenous Peoples’ Day — The Council of Indigenous Peoples' English article page, verifying the 1984 organization, 1987 rights declaration, 1991 and 1992 protests, 1994 name rectification, 1997 "Indigenous Peoples" entering the Constitution, and 2005 Indigenous Peoples' Day.↩234567
- Representations of the Name Rectification Movement of Taiwan Indigenous People — The Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica's academic article page, providing the research background of the name rectification movement, media representations, and the 1984 Indigenous Rights Promotion Organization.↩
- File: Dadaocheng Building (Council of Indigenous Peoples) 20130708.jpg — See the original link for supplementary content data.↩
- The Origin of Indigenous Peoples' Day — The Taitung County Government article page, verifying the June 23, 1994, march for name rectification, land rights, and autonomy, and the context of Indigenous Peoples' Day.↩
- Third Amendment of the Constitution — The Presidential Office's constitutional history page, verifying the 1994 third constitutional amendment and the clauses on Indigenous political participation and guarantees.↩
- Indigenous Peoples Rights Handbook — The Council of Indigenous Peoples' e-book article page, verifying the 1994 name rectification, 1996 CIP establishment, 1997 constitutional amendment, and 2005 Basic Act timeline.↩2
- 81 Indigenous Peoples' Day: Reviewing the Hard Journey of Name Rectification 30 Years Ago — The News Lens (Guancha) News in-depth article page, verifying Gao Zhengzhi, re-vote, 31 co-signers, National Convention meeting records, and the negotiation of different version articles.↩23
- Indigenous Peoples Basic Act — The Legal Information Database of the Executive Yuan's legal detail page, verifying the statutory framework of land, autonomy, culture, language, and consultation and consent after name rectification.↩
- The Past and Present of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act: Ideological Genealogy — The Academia Sinica Indigenous Peoples Historical and Cultural Knowledge Network article page, verifying the incomplete autonomy, ethnic recognition, specialized agencies, and traditional naming rights issues in 1994.↩
- File: 2008 Taiwan Indigenous Peoples Craft Exhibition Opening Watan Kiso.jpg — Wikimedia Commons file page, author Rico Shen, photo taken in 2008, CC BY-SA 4.0. The image hotlink is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/2008_Taiwan_Indigenous_Peoples_Craft_Exhibition_Opening_Watan_Kiso.jpg, the license terms are Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.↩
- File: The forest road in Wushe Incident Memorial Park.jpg — Wikimedia Commons file page, author jeffreyjhang, photo taken in 2013, CC BY-SA 2.0. The image hotlink is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/The_forest_road_in_Wushe_Incident_Memorial_Park.jpg, the license terms are Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.↩
