In the first televised presidential debate, Democratic Progressive Party candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) counterpart Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) were politically correct in their promotion of Aboriginal culture and education issues.
Ma apologized for his "slip of the tongue" when he told Osay Saoma, executive director of the Sijhou (溪洲) Community Self-help Association: "I see you as a human being ... will educate you well."
Hsieh, on the other hand, stressed strategic partnerships with Aborigines by stressing that the public should learn from their collective lifestyle.
The media, meanwhile, focused on members of Sijhou and Sanying (
Much of the Aborigines' land has fallen into the hands of corporations, and Aboriginal tribes have not shared in the profits made from tourism development on those lands. Worse still, they do not have rights to the natural resources on traditional Aboriginal land. As for urban Aboriginal land, the Taipei County Government has threatened to demolish Sijhou Township after forcibly removing residents from Sanying Township last week.
During the debate Ma mentioned the authentication system for the Aborginal Creation and Cultural Heritage Awards (原住民薪傳獎) and twice mentioned the experimental self-autonomy proposal.
However, a further examination of Ma's "diverse and prosperous Aboriginal culture" platform on his official campaign Web site reveals that the content is almost exactly the same as what the Council of Indigenous Peoples is already planning to do, except for the "NT$50 billion over four years" budget policy.
The platform lacks an integrated overall perspective on Aboriginal policy.
In contrast, Hsieh took a legal approach and emphasized the importance of the Aboriginal Basic Law (原住民族基本法) and seven related laws. Surprisingly, there is nothing on Hsieh's official campaign Web site dealing with Aboriginal policy, although his white paper on a sustainable environmental policy says that in order to protect the basic survival rights of Aborigines, a safe environment must first be safeguarded which guarantees their rights, respects their traditional customs and practices and states that the right to determine their own development should be returned to the Aborigines.
While both candidates stress Aboriginal culture as an element of Taiwan's cultural diversity, Hsieh sees the historical background -- It is the alien regime and its mistakes that have caused Aborigines to lose their traditional territories and become disadvantaged and marginalized.
Examining Ma's policy for urban Aborigines, we find that he ignores traditional Aboriginal customs for the sake of "safety" and supports the KMT-governed Taipei County in its removal of urban Aboriginal communities.
Hsieh, on the contrary, is aware of the Aboriginal homeland problem, so he suggested maintaining the "status quo" with regard to the Sijhou Township issue because it is a social problem and should not be handled as an illegal construction issue.
Aborigines are still not granted the legal right to live on the land they depend on for their survival.
This issue allows us to determine which of the two candidates respects Aborigines more.
Along Chen is assistant professor in the Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management at Kainan University.
Translated by Ted Yang
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US