Embarrassing discourse
A recent experience proved the spirit of Taiwan’s democracy is still alive and strong; unfortunately, polarization followed closely behind seeking to thwart its achievements.
Earlier this month, leading Taiwanese and foreign academics attended a symposium in Taipei to discuss Taiwan’s international status. I was lucky enough to be invited. From the opening remarks and personal introductions, both sides’ enthusiasm to learn from the other filled the room, creating an atmosphere of scholarship and goodwill.
The circle of professors, research fellows and political advisors from around the world conversed as a diverse yet collaborative intellectual body about Taiwan’s political climate, policies and agenda for the future. Ideas were presented, assessed and enhanced from different perspectives. This scene demonstrated the vibrancy and vitality of Taiwan’s democracy.
However, when the symposium moved toward discussion of Taiwan’s domestic politics — specifically, the friction between its two main political parties as the primary impediment in the advancement of its national agendas — the positive dialogue abruptly degenerated into baseless accusations and irrelevant misrepresentations.
The furor was incited by the following question, posed by a foreign academic: “How can the KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party] and the DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] move toward reconciliation?” Instead of continuing their collaboration, the Taiwanese panel began arguing among themselves over a response.
The foreigners watched, uncomfortable, perplexed and ultimately ignored as panel members presented their own critiques of parties and politicians. It was clear to me that the panel members were not listening to their guests or to each other.
I saw a room full of whiny schoolchildren desperately trying to redirect blame from themselves onto others. My appreciation quickly turned to embarrassment and most of all, frustration.
Had one foreign academic not boldly interrupted the dispute and requested a return to order, the Taiwanese likely would have continued their debate, wasting the opportunity to learn from their guests and embarrassing themselves further. While order was eventually restored, the outburst changed the tone of the symposium. It turned the foreign academics into disciplinarians rather than colleagues.
If Taiwan wishes to be taken seriously on the international stage, its leaders and opinion makers must go all-out to ensure the chaotic scene I witnessed is not repeated. They must not allow personal sentiments and party allegiances to consume progress or tarnish Taiwan’s international reputation.
Especially now, with its international status facing rising challenges, Taiwan’s leaders must learn collaboration and unity from within before they can expect to achieve the same abroad.
TERESA TARN
Taipei
Ideology as bad tricks?
When the plaque of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (中正紀念堂) was put back by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government, the debates about Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) totalitarianism and democracy rose again. Just two years ago, the decision by former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration to rename the hall as the “National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall” provoked a fierce protest. This time the Ma government kept a low profile in changing the plaque. While such action might be interpreted as low-key, it does not stop the ideological debate over how Chiang and his era should be evaluated.
The “Talking about headlines” section on tw.yahoo.com invites browsers to express their opinion about this event. What’s interesting is that these comments show either zealous ideology or indifference to both sides. While some commenters strongly defend Chiang’s contribution to Taiwan, claiming that if not for him, Taiwan would have been occupied by the People’s Republic of China decades ago, others compare him to Adolf Hitler, suggesting he is a symbol of totalitarianism. These comments do not show new ideas, but reflect the typical pan-blue and pan-green discourse.
What concerns me is not the pan-blue or the pan-green ideologies, but the third wave of reaction — indifference. More Taiwanese are growing tired of the vicious competition between the KMT and DPP, seeing through the political and ideological manipulation of both. It is a pity that what follows their acknowledgement of the discursive operation is not the ability to mediate or transcend the discourse, but skepticism and nihilism.
After decades of enthusiasm about politics and elections, many Taiwanese have cooled down, claiming that these arguments are nothing but political tricks. At a certain level, such an interpretation is right. Politics in Taiwan, more often than not, looks like a bad drama. But a question I would like to pose is: What country is immune to ideologies?
“Ideology” can be interpreted as a post-modern term of “belief,” a key concept to give directions to a nation. Each country is built upon the communal beliefs of its people, as the US was established on the wonderful dream that everyone living in that country enjoys the same rights and opportunities.
While the ideologies and discourses deployed by the KMT and DPP might be black tricks for many, we still need to build an ideology for all Taiwanese. Ideology is the vital foundation of an independent nation. It is a pity that Ma, insisting on a certain ideology, does not seize the chance to communicate with Taiwanese and has to rely on the police to prevent protests.
Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊), on the other hand, has proven her flexibility and willingness to accept different ideologies and to create a new mode of ideology for Taiwanese. The World Games in Kaohsiung won great acclaim and provided a new ideology and a new vision for Taiwanese. Politics can be more than bad tricks, and Chen Chu and her Kaohsiung Organizing Committee for the Games proved this. Ideology can be enthusiastic, passionate and non-confrontational.
PHYLLIS HUANG
Carlton, Australia
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