After the March 20 election, Ketagalan Boulevard suddenly became a political stage for the pan-blue camp's razzmatazz. Despite some media euphemizing the protests as the "middle class" taking to the street, the reality is that this is a just topsy-turvy political stunt.
In live broadcasts, we saw People First Party (PFP) Legislator Liu Wen-hsiung (
The same group of people displayed entirely different symbols of nationality and ethnicity. How should we interpret such variation?
If the blue camp tries to represent "ethnic integration" -- since a variety of symbols and voices are included -- then it is merely putting on a charade. In fact, since the blue camp has become the opposition party, it has never studied its script for playing the role of an opposition party. The whole presidential campaign and the protests are yet another show of its laziness. Given its earlier boycotts of legislative meetings and the current demonstrations, the pan-blue camp has only succeeded in learning the form of opposition party but not its inner meaning.
What the blue camp lacks is a distinctive political discourse open for debate. The issues to be discussed in the discourse include how to maintain Taiwan's sovereignty, how to tackle China's military threat, how to achieve internal unity under pressure from China, how to distinguish the structural features of Taiwan's eco-political institutions, how to deepen Taiwan's democracy, and how to accommodate Taiwan's industries to the tide of globalization.
Unable to answer these questions, a blue-camp-style "pluralism" appears in the void. The candidates and campaign workers hold different views on important issues. The question of whether to take part in the referendum serves as a good example. Maybe the blue camp presumed it could take this question lightly, since it has a 60 percent to 40 percent advantage. In fact, this estimation overlooked the influence of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). More significantly, this election shows a huge increase in local awareness. Any blurring of the Taiwan sovereignty issue will be blocked by the electorate.
We must not forget the fact that the green camp had waited long for its ruling day. The key factor of why the green camp won elections in recent years is not their "proficiency in electioneering," as the blue camp alleges. Rather, the green camp won elections on the basis of its accumulated discourses and its experience in political reality. From the perspective of the Taiwanese discourse of identity construction, the green camp's discourses -- from the gemeinschaft concept Kaohsiung Mayor Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) cited, the constitutional movement discussion of the ethnic issue, to the "four major ethnic groups" the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) advocates -- all contribute to elevate the independence of Taiwan from a level of political reality to a higher level of identification and a deepening of culture.
Take the DPP's anti-"black gold" stance for example. Black gold is not only felt by the people. The conundrum of administraion/business syndicates/local factions also needs to be unraveled. What concerns us more is the long-standing media bias. Despite being disliked by the media, some phrases and words the green camp coined began to appear in the media. Such is the power of discourse.
Although the pan-blue camp does not study hard, it is not stupid. On the contrary, it is quite smart. It need not exercise its wit to compose discourses, but simply manipulate the sensationalist media to spread alarmist talk. When many senior journalists or political commentators leak information under the rubric of "as far as I know" and irresponsibly speak up without any evidence to back their claims in talk-shows, or when they criticize President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in words sounding mysteriously authoritarian, it is hard to say their baseless allegations have little effect. But the question is, does this do any good for our democracy?
The pan-blue camp's sluggish and opportunistic strategy has led it into a dilemma -- devoid of any substantial discourse, the blue camp can only recruit some senior journalists and political commentators as its mouthpiece. Their mission is to slander any national leader from the green camp, from Lee to Chen. As long as the green camp is in power, such character assassination will continue.
After the March 27 parade, a localization faction legislator from the blue camp said that the blue camp had been too docile, and thereby bullied by the green camp. Now, he said, the blue camp should emulate the green to drum up populism. This legislator is probably mistaken. The blue camp's ability to mobilize is not less than the green camp's.
The point is that without any vision and discourse, the pan-blue camp will be nothing but an anti-Chen rally.
Hsu Tung-ming is a freelance writer based in Beijing.
Translated by Wang Hsiao-wen
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