Following the lifting of martial law, the nation's democracy has moved forward by leaps and bounds. From the full-scale election of the legislature to the direct election of the president, provincial governor and city mayors, from the freezing of the provincial government to the abolition of the National Assembly, from the transfer of power in 2000 to the current heated referendum debate, there have always been people who worried that the sky would fall and who therefore tried to apply the brakes.
But while they were looking for the brake pedal, the people swiftly moved on to the next stage.
Looking back at the elections to increase the number of legislators in the legislature ("unconstitutional"), the founding of new political parties under the new-party ban ("illegal") and the alarmist statements made in the book T-day published in 1994 ("war"), we see that any kind of positive or negative statement may be the subject of gradually increasing attention and debate. But through the democratic process, the result is an advancement of the general situation. I guess the referendum will bring the same result.
But are there also some demands that in spite of the democratic process remain in the dark, forgotten. Political maneuvering inevitably requires a representative chain of equivalence relations [A=B=C=D, and so on] in order to bring about popular cohesion, promote a wave of collective activities, and bring legitimacy to the discourse.
"Democracy" and "people" are two of the most important symbols of general representativeness in modern politics, but if the two cannot be included on the actual political battlefield to become part of a chain of equivalence in a meaningful discourse, they will remain empty concepts.
"People" thus must be equated with the Chinese Communist Party and Mao Zedong (
For contemporary Americans, liberal democracy is equated with the US Constitution, the American way of life, US diplomacy and anti-terrorism. The greatest differences of understanding this equation are no more than the question of whether terrorism should be opposed in the manner advocated by US President George W. Bush.
In our chain-of-equivalence conflict, "Taiwan," "Taiwanese people," "Taiwanese sovereignty and independence," "democratic reform" and "referendum" are equated with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), President Chen Shui-bian (
Because there really is some distance between the symbols for Taiwan on the one hand, and the Lien-Soong ticket on the other hand, the pan-blue camp is forced to promote a system of negative equations, such as equating the referendum to war, and the DPP is forced to promote provocation of ethnic groups and so on.
It is worth noticing that "black gold" -- which used to stick to the KMT like glue -- this time around has been pushed to the rear. Maybe it is like Kao Lang (
But doesn't this carry the implication that "black gold" in fact is "white gold," and even a source of nourishment for this kind of liberal democratic government, and that this kind of government is a crucial link in the food chain of modern vested interests?
One important function of the chain-of-equivalence discourse is that it hides this food chain. But people are not stupid, and it is impossible that they will not see the existence of the food chain.
Referendums on the national level -- Taiwan's, for example -- risk reducing the complexity of the chain of equivalence, but by refusing to vote we instead place ourselves in the midst of a reductive polarized opposition, using passive inaction to actively verify and even expand the reduction of the chain of equivalence, thereby covering up reflection over the food chain -- for example, opposition to missile purchases.
The Lafayette frigate-related Yin Ching-feng (
Letting there be conflict over seemingly indisputable options is to dissolve reductive equivalence. The chain of equivalence and the food chain will not disappear. We may not be able to do more than to demystify the former and expose the latter.
Yen Chueh-an is a law professor at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China