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
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