Last week I wrote an article calling on President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to take a clear stand by condemning the eccentric views expressed in the articles posted on the Internet by diplomat Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英).
Such a condemnation would confirm the government’s determination to uphold the civilized values of equality and mutual respect between members of different ethnic communities. Since my article was written, Kuo has admitted that he was indeed “Fan Lan-chin” (范蘭欽), the author of the online posts, confirming what many people already suspected and provoking a further public outcry. It now seems that the government and opposition are largely in agreement on the need to draw up an act on ethnic equality.
Although I said that Ma should take a firm position on the Kuo case, I now call on Taiwan’s political parties not to take their righteous indignation too far by giving the state excessive legal powers to interfere in the prejudices and differences that exist in our society.
The first thing to consider is that prejudice and inequality do not exist only between different ethnic communities. There is also discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, nationality, political affiliation and so on. If we really want to set legal limits on the expression of prejudicial and hateful views, it would be better to have an all-encompassing anti-prejudice law than one concerned with ethnic communities only.
Worrying excesses are frequently seen in the exercise of state power. This may be because Taiwan is a newly emerged democracy and bad habits from the old authoritarian system still persist, or perhaps because the idea of human rights has not fully taken hold. Even in the handling of corruption charges against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), many irregularities in judicial procedure have occurred, to the extent that they have aroused concern from international media and human rights groups. That being the case, it is reasonable to worry that serious infringements of freedom of speech may occur if the state authorities intervene in the expression of different opinions and prejudices that exist in society and seek to impose limits on the expression of discriminatory and hateful viewpoints.
Kuo, as a high-ranking civil servant, has already been severely punished by being dismissed for the extreme views he expressed. Although Kuo’s hateful articles were upsetting for most Taiwanese, it may be out of proportion to respond to these events by enacting an act on ethnic equality or an anti-prejudice act that seeks to impose excessive penalties. For Kuo, the place in history he has earned for himself will be a heavy enough burden to bear for the rest of his life.
A democratic system always has to find a balance between the values of political equality on the one hand and political freedom on the other. To maintain political equality, it is necessary to protect the right to take part in the political process without structural inequalities based on wealth, status or education. For political freedom to exist, on the other hand, the right of minorities to “sing out of harmony” must be guaranteed, however extreme and harsh on the ears their voices may be. There is no universally applicable rule as to how to find this balance between political equality and political freedom. It depends on the historical reality of each society and on the capacity of its political leaders for self-examination.
There are two major factors underlying the deterioration in relations between different ethnic communities in recent years. One is the pressure for Taiwan to become more economically dependent on China, weakening its geopolitical position and making people feel uneasy. People with differing political affiliations have very different ideas of what to do under such circumstances and they do not trust one another. This lack of trust gives rise to the second element, which is that supporters of the pan-green and pan-blue camps are less willing to make an effort to understand and appreciate the historical background behind their opponents’ choice of identity. The Kuo case and the furor surrounding it are a fine illustration of how these two factors affect Taiwan.
Having experienced the traumas of the first half of the 20th century, in which governments did their utmost to eliminate those who held opposing views, German-born writer Hannah Arendt wrote that the essence of the human spirit is not brotherhood, but friendship, and that friendship is not a relationship between people who are close to begin with, but rather a requirement when discussing public affairs and a necessity when forming a world view.
Those politicians who really wish to improve relations between the different ethnic communities in Taiwan need to honestly confront the two causative factors I identified above. In handling relations with China, they should seek more dialogue and better communication among Taiwanese. In regard to identity politics and questions of history, they should be more willing to re-examine and reconsider their own views.
If they just make a gesture by passing an act on ethnic equality and leave it at that, relations between communities will not be improved and may even get worse.
Tao Yi-feng is an associate professor of political science at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath