In recent months, much noise has suddenly been made about social and political reform.
In the 1980s and 1990s, calls for reform were made nonstop. From media reports to street demonstrations, social reform seemed to underpin the hopes and deeds of everyone everywhere. Even though reformists were repeatedly oppressed or threatened, they continued to march forward bravely and endured hardships gladly. That was indeed an era of idealism. People had hopes and dreams, and they turned their hopes and dreams into actions for one purpose only -- to make Taiwan better.
Over the past year or two, however, people seem to have lost interest in reform -- or even gone against it. From the reform of education and grassroots financial associations to those of Taipei City's borough administration system and the media, voices of objection can frequently be heard.
Some of the voices are those of people with vested interests, which is understandable and legitimate since their interests are threatened. What's baffling, however, is that many of the voices are those of so-called intellectuals, or even of certain greatly respected, erstwhile reform activists. Why have these people suddenly become anti-reformist in the space of a few short years?
There has to be a social basis for reform. No reform in a democratic society can succeed without the most basic social consensus and support. The success of the reforms of the 1980s and the 1990s was a result of the social consensus at that time. Today's situation is very different, because almost all reform measures have been politicized.
Take educational reform. It was clearly launched before the DPP came to power. But it was immediately labeled part and party to DPP policy after the party came to power. From the opposition parties' perspective, their objection to the policy was originally rational and necessary because it would make the policy more complete. After all, political antagonism is the essence of democratic politics.
The problem is that in this country there is neither a neutral public sphere nor a neutral public opinion. From the media to intellectuals to the general public, we are used to identifying ourselves with political parties and ideologies. We then duplicate antagonism among parties, instead of overcoming it.
Almost all Taiwanese, including the intellectuals, are incapable of stamping out the feud among parties and ideologies. They have failed to objectively judge and evaluate our public policies.
In fact, there was no less political antagonism in the 1980s and the 1990s than there is today. But, as I said, political antagonism is the essence of democratic politics. What is more important is whether our society can transcend politics. No social consensus can be formed if public opinion cannot transcend inter-party feuds. Once this social consensus is lost, all reforms become difficult, indeed, doomed to failure. This is precisely the structural difficulty facing reform.
In addition to this major structural factor, certain minor problems have also occurred in connection with political and social reform. Put simply, these are the problems of elitism and of systems. Most reformists have an elitist attitude, believing that reform simply means stipulating new laws or establishing new systems and organizations. They almost completely ignore the willingness or cooperation of those involved in reform.
Again, take educational reform for example. The main direction of educational reform is correct. But the problem is that these reforms were made by the academic elite and simply imposed on teachers. This kind of reform is actually quite violent. Do teachers recognize the ideal of reform measures? How appropriate are the measures? Are the processes and details of the reforms complete? Since all these questions have been ignored, it is no wonder that teachers strongly protest against them.
Teachers are the real implementors of educational reform. They are the mainstay of the reform. Any reform theory is destined to be incomplete if their opinions are not included; any reform plan is destined to fail without their active cooperation. Regrettably, educational reform ignored the implementors, as well as parents' and the public's participation and opinion. As a result, educational reform has lost its social basis while walking into a dead-end. The reformists themselves should deeply reflect on this.
Reform is the driving force of social development. Only a constantly reforming society can have dreams and ideals and make perpetual progress. The public should therefore enthusiastically applaud any government that actively carries out reform, so that dynamic reform can be launched on a social basis. Intellectuals especially should transcend the baggage of parties and ideologies and raise justified, fair and professional voices in order to lead public opinion. The media moreover should build a healthy and vigorous public sphere, so that the public can develop sound opinions which can gradually turn into mainstream opinions. This is the most important social basis for any reform.
Of course, reformists must get rid of elitism. They should try to adopt a more open attitude and allow the public -- especially those involved in reform -- to participate in the reform process. Through frequent and sophisticated communication and interaction, both the reform ideals and the reform process will become more complete. When that happens, we will truly be able to establish a social basis for reform, letting the public learn and grow together. This is precisely the art of reform and the best way to truly realize its spirit.
Lii Ding-tzann is a professor in the Institute of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers