A few days ago, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
But an analysis of the paper leaves one frustrated. Given the KMT's wealth of political talent and that Ma is a Harvard law graduate, one could have expected a global perspective that measures up to international standards of governance.
So why is his white paper on Aboriginal policy superficial and short-sighted, as if Aborigines were of no importance?
Ma's policy shows no sense of integration with the international community. On Sept. 13, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which concerns all the indigenous peoples of the world, was adopted by the UN General Assembly. The fact that Ma -- more than a month later -- did not include this declaration in his white paper highlights his ignorance and indifference to Aboriginal issues, as well as his campaign team's laziness and carelessness.
Ma seems to be treating Aboriginal people as if he were still the mayor of Taipei.
At first glance, his proposal seems filled with preferential treatment, but it all turns out to be discriminatory colonialism encouraging the assimilation of Aborigines.
Many of the proposals could be implemented by the Council of Indigenous Peoples' education/culture and health departments, and many are indeed being implemented or are in the planning stages.
The white paper proposes self-determination for Aboriginal peoples, but it is a "self-determination" that is not based in self-governance. Ma wants to force Aborigines to accept the government's "good laws and good intentions." This approach has long been criticized elsewhere in the world. Furthermore, the key to Aboriginal self-determination is land -- one of the most important Aboriginal rights.
Unfortunately, the word "land" is not mentioned once in the white paper. What kind of self-determination is that without land?
The paper doesn't even clearly mention the enactment of sub-laws to the Aboriginal Basic Law (原住民基本法), the most important part of the project of codifying the rights of Aboriginal peoples.
It makes one wonder if Ma is preparing to run for president or for mayor of Taipei all over again.
In his essay "Politics as a Vocation," German economist and sociologist Max Weber suggested a distinction between politicians whose interest is more non-vocational in nature and those who pursue politics as a career.
The former are eager to seize power and selectively advocate issues that serve their own purposes. Such politicians can manipulate the public by accustoming it to pursuing short-term benefits.
Ma is committing this mistake by only proposing short-term goals -- such as building bridges and constructing roads -- to cater to Aborigines while avoiding discussion of long-term sustainable development that can safeguard the dignity and self-determination of indigenous communities.
I hope our political leaders can be "vocational politicians" and offer policies that are capable of touching the hearts of Aborigines, and who can then implement these policies step by step.
Better that than adopting short-sighted tactics to placate Aboriginal people and making "policy" suggestions that show no interest whatsoever in Aboriginal issues.
Isak Afo is a member of the Amis tribe and spokesperson of the Taiwan Indigenous Association.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS