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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US