The most moving political action following the shooting attack on President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on March 19 is this: young politicians from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) plan to propose a New Culture discourse aimed at resolving ethnic confrontation in Taiwan. This has been one of the few construc-tive things that politicians have wanted to do in this atmosphere of political and ethnic hatred. But how effective will it be? I have my doubts.
I don't doubt the importance of a new discourse. "Discourse" seems to be such a powerful academic word, yet it is something we all engage in in our daily lives. It's a way of communicating and engaging in rational debate in order to arrive at some degree of consensus on a certain issue. Although rationality is not the only component of human society, society would not function if we denied the possibility of rational consensuses and norms.
Nor do I doubt the sincerity and good intentions of the pan-blue and pan-green politicians involved in the construction of this new discourse. Their capacity for rationality is above that of the average politician. The New Society Declaration, for example, drafted 15 or 16 years ago by one of the participants in the New Culture discourse, Julian Kuo (郭正亮), became the focus of debate for students and social activists of the day.
What I do doubt, however, is whether many people will accept having politicians direct the formation of a discourse.
Quite a number of important new discourses have appeared over the past dozen years -- the Rising People discourse, the New Central Plains Culture discourse, the New Taiwanese discourse, the state-to-state discourse, the Alien Regime discourse, and so on. Some of these discourses have been more reminiscent of slogans, but many are the result of rational argumentation. Most of them have been proposed by advisors to politicians, and have then trickled down through society via politics.
All of these discourses were at one stage or another given wide coverage by the media, and they were once on the lips of every politician and common man. They have influenced the way people think. The state-to-state model, for example, created an uproar when it was first proposed, but in the past two or three years many people have come to accept the idea of one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait.
But why did former DPP chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良), who proposed the Rising People discourse from a DPP point of view, end up in direct opposition to Chen during the recent presidential election? And why does Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who relied on former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) New Taiwanese discourse to win his election, no longer seem to live in the same country as Lee? Because politicians don't care about the process of a discourse. All they ask is whether a discourse meets their political interests. If it does, they use it. The majority of the public are even less engaged in the discourse process, and are only aware of a discourse's results.
It is very difficult to imagine a cultural discourse emerging from the political arena. But how about the world outside politics? It has been said that religion is good medicine in times of chaos, so how about Taiwan's religious leaders? After March 19, when they have been most needed by society, they have only been willing to issue uncontroversial press releases.
Only Cardinal Paul Shan (單國璽) and Master Sheng Yen (聖嚴法師) have been willing to stand up and make some further statements, and it is still not an area open to social dialogue. Master Hsing Yun (星雲法師) showed an interest in the election only when things had calmed down slightly, and the Presbyterian Church had a lot of misgivings about making a donation for the recount.
How about cultural circles then? Lately, cultural groups seem to have been more interested in issuing declarations than in engaging in dialogue. A step down on the ladder, the mass media orators are spreading doubt lacking any rational foundation on daily TV talk shows. Imagine the following scene: a member of the public is sitting in a taxi reading an article about how Chinese culture is an important part of Taiwanese culture, or one about how Taiwanese culture is a branch of Chinese culture, while a voice on the radio says that "although forensic scientist Henry Lee (李昌鈺) says Chen didn't fire the bullets himself, these two bullets are still mired in doubt." Would you still have any interest in considering the Chinese or Taiwanese culture issue?
The formation of social and cultural discourses requires sincere dialogue. With society unwilling to engage in dialogue, it will be even less probable that politicians will give up their dialogue ruled by the logic of power. Maybe political circles should pay more attention to minimizing social confrontation from a policy, systemic and even personnel point of view.
The political scientist Lin Jih-wen (林繼文), for example, has considered the question of how to reduce the polarization during election campaigns from the perspective of the electoral system. And why hasn't the Cabinet reshuffle included any actual personnel arrangements aimed at putting the spotlight on ethnic reconciliation? Would these issues be more difficult to achieve than the formation of a New Culture discourse?
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with