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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations