The past two or three months have seen another upsurge in social movements in Taiwan: Aboriginal movements (over the Makao National Park and nuclear waste storage on Orchid Island, among other issues), workers opposing the increase in labor and health insurance fees, the housing rights movement, the big march by teachers on Sept. 28 and the gathering of 120,000 farmers in Taipei. Perhaps Taiwan is on the verge of another major change.
More than a decade ago, Taiwan's democracy movement brought about substantial changes to the nation's political and economic systems. All kinds of social movements flourished in the wake of these changes, leading to a social transformation. That period of great structural change, so rarely seen in Taiwanese society, ended with the DPP's ascent to power. Not only did the political and economic system become more democratic, but social reconstruction gave rise to limitless popular expectations thanks to the DPP's support for, and involvement in, the social movements.
But the limitless expectations have been dashed by the recent succession of marches. The "post-social movement" reform model has already run aground. The fact that Taiwan's social development has regressed to the point of being a subject of hostile street demonstrations in just two or three short years is a fact that demands some analysis.
Over the past 10 years or so, vigorous Taiwanese social movements in the shadow of the authoritarian system have had an enormous impact, forcing social change and even assisting the DPP's ascent to power, the first transfer of political power in Taiwan. Considering that Taiwan had experienced decades of martial law, the results of social movements over the past decade are exceptionally commendable.
Has Taiwan's social reform project been largely completed, eliminating the need for social movements? Or have all major social reform projects been appropriately considered by the government, eliminating the need for the flag-waving and slogan-shouting personalities in the social movements?
Quite clearly, the recent upsurge in social movements negates the premise behind such questions.
The weird thing is, however, that some big recent social movements seem to have erupted in response to several of the government's reform policies. The big march by teachers on Sept. 28 has been seen as opposing educational reform. The demonstration by farmers and fishermen on Nov. 23 has been interpreted as a reaction to agricultural financial reform. Social movements appear to have turned into a conservative, anti-reform activity.
But the root of such bizarre phenomena lies in the abstraction and conceptualization of reform rather than thorough research into reform proposals.
In theory, any change to the existing system can be called reform, and reforms can therefore have different orientations. They can improve things or they can make things worse. It is absolutely not a one-dimensional phenomenon, and it is inappropriate to consider it in one-dimensional terms, such as "better" or "worse." The questions we should ask are: "Who will gain from the reforms?" and "Who will lose?" Phrases such as "the common interests of the whole people" cannot be used in this context.
But neither can reform be reduced to a simple dichotomy by saying that "reform is detrimental to vested interests within the old structure, and better for everyone else." The fundamental reason why educational reform and the reform of agricultural financing have recently met with such vehement opposition is that the decision-makers within the DPP are adopting such a simple dichotomy.
Let's analyze the march by teachers on Sept. 28. The teachers are said to have taken to the streets to protest their loss of income-tax exemption and to win the right to form unions, but their protest was mainly a result of educational reform. The attention and support given to the teachers' movement by society in general is also related to the issues created by educational reform.
The first proposition involved in educational reform presided over by Lee Yuan-tseh (
What was termed "deregulation," however, was basically the same as thorough marketization. Blind deregulation leads to the commoditization of education. Following the logic of commodities and free markets, people's rights to an education becomes polarized, with different family backgrounds leading to different educational opportunities. Many parents are suspicious of educational reform because they believe it will involve higher tuition fees and more expensive educational materials. More seriously, unequal educational opportunities impede mobility between social strata and perpetuate unequal social systems.
Let's take another look at the farmers march on Nov. 23, which seemed to be attacking agricultural financial reform. Bad management is certainly a factor in the credit units of farmers' associations, but the financial reforms proposed by the Ministry of Finance would basically result in agricultural financial institutions being run as though they were commercial banks. The plan is to regulate the agricultural sector according to free-market logic. Such regulations are obviously advantageous to international financial operators, but are not in the interests of the farmers. Such reform cannot be generalized as being simply better, or more ideal.
These two real-life examples expose the myths of reform. Abstracted and conceptualized reform furtively projects the moral halo of idealism, which prohibits a true understanding of the objective world. When true understanding is no longer possible, the victims take to the streets.
Lin Hsiao-hsin is the founder of Science Monthly and an executive director at the National Association for the Promotion of Community Universities.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under