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
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