The presidential election was a war of hate characterized by accusations. These accusations did not stop with the election's end, and have reached new heights in the gamut of various mass demonstrations.
The hatred never ends. From reading the English-language press, one would think that post-election Taiwan resembles a "third-world democracy," although political and press commentators here have dubbed these demonstrations "new democratic movements."
I'm afraid this phenomenon is hardly a one-time event, resulting as it does from heretofore undealt-with identities -- spanning national, class and geographical identifications -- that have been simmering for a long time.
These differences have irrationally justified a variety of accusations. The air is thick with these dubious slurs, and laws and institutions formerly relied upon in society are more and more embattled. If we wish to prevent Taiwan from coming apart at the seams, caught between these accusations and crises of trust, we should calmly examine this phenomenon and find out who should be held responsible. Have we been too tolerant of these politicians and mass media organizations accusing others without evidence to back up their claims?
Taiwanese politicians, regardless of their affiliations, are employing accusations as a major tool in political discussions, going on the principle that the first to speak wins the upper hand. According to this principle, the onus is on the accused to refute allegations and prove their innocence, no matter how substantial or flimsy the evidence against them may be. I have never conducted a scientific study on whether the political gains from following this logic warrant the glee with which politicians pursue it.
Yet the idea that the accuser does not have to come up with evidence to back accusations goes against the legal principle of sufficient evidence. Despite this, in recent years, we have seen countless politicians and media workers from across the political spectrum utter the words "someone told me" to quote anonymous sources, whose existence it is impossible to verify, to create major debates and command the attention of large audiences.
This phenomenon, and the logic behind it, reached a peak during this election. For example, the media intentionally played up, or down, accusations made by fugitive tycoon Chen Yu-hao (
Accusations should not be confused with the truth, and reason for suspicion does not equal factual evidence. Are these ridiculous assertions due to the fact that Taiwanese society is used to fuzzy logic? Are they the result of indulgence on the part of the populace? Or is it because Taiwanese politicians and media have some kind of God-given right to make false accusations and speak untruths? If indeed democracy is based on choice, then these politicians have appeared as a result of choices the people have made.
How is it that these slurs seem to imply that 50.11 percent of the electorate are as a group somehow second to the other voters, who made up 49.89 percent of the valid votes? Or that this group voted for the president against their better judgment, having been sucked in by supposed campaign chicanery? Is this an affront to the discernment of the electorate, or a dismissal of their intelligence?
Democratic rule of law is based on the premise of distrust, and it's a democratic norm to scrutinize government actions. This is why the law provides channels through which such disputes born of mistrust can be dealt with.
It is therefore essential that we allow legal mechanisms to continue unhindered, at least until their fundamental procedures and structures have proven to be ineffective. We should maintain a certain level of good faith and trust, as we need these fundamental game rules in place if we are not to languish in an endless struggle.
Such basic procedures and mechanisms may not fully measure up to one's expectations. However, unless one completely refutes their legitimacy and necessity, the election argument should be resolved through legally recognized procedures, and a solution found therein. One side should not mislead the public into taking part in senseless assaults, as when the election commission made an announcement that it was required by law to make. Neither should one side call a press conference and claim "the law is unfair" just as the courts are making a judgment following due process, or mislead the public by comparing the simultaneous holding of the referendum and the election with illegal "tie-in sales" (
How could these politicians claim that some election commission members who had pressed for more caution in defining what was to constitute an invalid vote were pro-green?
And if they do finally get the justice they say is being denied them, how are these politicians to modify their claims that the law is unfair? That a lot of people were disappointed by the election result is one thing; to doubt the ability of legal procedures to resolve a controversy is another. If we don't believe that problems can be resolved by the law, are we to resort to lie detectors across the nation?
The problem we face is not simply the endless crisis of mistrust aroused by politicians and media workers, who like everyone else have differing beliefs and support different camps.
The procedures of democratic rule of law cannot heal every rift, and likewise the words of politicians cannot rebuild every trust.
Perhaps the only remedy open to us is for the public to critically appraise political accusations and unfounded reports to identify dubious or invalid points, and to respond in our capacities as voters and consumers.
We should also ask ourselves whether such distrustful and disorderly words and deeds are the main source of the divisions among us. Otherwise, we will always be a rabble, not a people.
Liu Ching-yi is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Industrial Economics at National Central University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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