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
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