More than a month after the presidential election, We are still mired in controversy. The dispute over the victory is to be settled via legal channels. After US forensics specialist Henry Lee's (
It is time for both the government and the opposition to make concessions and hand the reins to the judicial authorities. If the green and blue camps hope to build and safeguard democracy, they should use the law as a yardstick to meas-ure their behavior. It is improper to resort to rash speculation and assumptions, stepping beyond the bounds of democracy and law.
For both sides' politicians, such plain logic is easy to understand but hard to act upon.
On April 13 in the Taipei City Council chambers, some council members placed a shrine in front of the portrait of Chen and burned incense, then tore the portrait down and carried it around. In the Legislative Yuan, a legislator said that "people should kill Chen Shui-bian" -- then atoned for the misstep with three apologies and six bows.
This sort of behavior violates the status and accountability of elected representatives, falls short of the people's trust and damages democracy and the rule of law. I believe these politicians are staging a political show to attract media attention. Yet politicians who put aside public issues to engage in political stunts are little different from drunkards hit by the stones they throw at others.
I fear that such drunkards, unaware of their own inebriation, will blame other people if the wine is bad. Such irresponsible behavior incites supporters of different camps and escalates social tensions, igniting more hatred between the opposing sides. While the green camp talked about gaining votes through a "cutthroat" war, the blue camp issued un-nerving calls to "gun down" their opponents.
This political discourse is plagued with hyperbole, forcing democracy to yield to savage antagonism. As the doors to beneficial interparty interactions shut, the public forum is transformed into a slaughterhouse. Of course, the victims are the supporters of both camps and those who must earn a living regardless of their ethnicity.
Politicians' careers rely on their political discourse, and their electoral support measures the effects of this discourse. Accountable politicians understand the responsibilities entrusted to them by the electorate and know they must be cautious with their words and deeds.
But this is not the case with manipulative politicians, who cover hatred with love, paper over violence with peace, costume authoritarianism as democracy, and coat political strife with ethnic issues. As a result, the supporters of the green and the blue camps who once sat together and shared their thoughts now point fingers at each other.
Sadly, the costs of politicizing ethnic issues go beyond this lack of collegiality. As Taiwan has inherited undeniable political and economic divisions from the past, it also has subtle and complicated ethnic problems.
Nonetheless, it is overstatement to call this "ethnic conflict." Supporters of both the Chen-Lu ticket and the joint ticket of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) include four major ethnic groups.
And while the numbers of Chen-Lu supporters among Mainlander, Hakka and Aboriginal groups surged, the number of Lien-Soong supporters among the Hoklo (also known as local Taiwanese) exceeded 40 percent.
These diverse loyalties reveal that voters are more level-headed than politicians: they vote for candidates instead of parties. They care more about which leader offers a hopeful tomorrow than about ethnic ideologies. If there were ethnic conflict in Taiwan, Chen and Lu might not have won such a narrow victory. The problem is not who disrupts ethnic harmony, but rather that both camps are politicizing ethnic issues.
Consequently, even the identity-building slogan "Love Taiwan" becomes a scapegoat, sparking a further fierce war of words. Love for Taiwan, like love for our society, nation, democracy, justice and peace, hinges on issues of identification. Since everyone loves Taiwan, how can this slogan incite ethnic conflict?
Those candidates who chanted the "Love Taiwan" slogan might benefit from their enhanced political image, but they do not necessarily win more votes. The voters will judge politicians by their actions rather than by their words. Ethnic conflicts and biases are beside the point.
Politicians from both camps should take note of this, and stop hyping the ethnic issue.
Xiang Yang is an associate professor of indigenous languages at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Wang Hsiao-wen
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers