“Please believe that this is for real,” President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government said a few days ago, after the Cabinet passed an amendment to the Organic Act of the Executive Yuan (行政院組織法). The government wants the public to believe that its latest round of “government restructuring” will be real reform.
To this, one might like to say: “Perhaps you are ‘for real’ this time, but does this not imply that all the reforms you talked about in the past were fake?”
Real reformers need not worry about people not believing their reforms are in earnest. Real reformers are not only capable of putting aside vested interests, they also know how to transcend pre-existing concepts and put aside the burdens of tradition. Otherwise, reform may not be able to achieve all it is meant to do. The Ma administration’s latest round of “government restructuring” is a case in point.
One might have expected government restructuring to include scrapping redundant agencies like the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission (MTAC) and the Overseas Compatriots Affairs Commission (OCAC), but these bodies have remained intact.
Mongolia has long been an independent country, and there are less than 100 Mongolians in Taiwan. There are not many Tibetans in Taiwan, either, yet we still keep the MTAC, which receives NT$160 million (US$5.5 million) of the national budget.
What is really funny is that the MTAC has more than 70 people working for it — not many fewer than the number of people they are meant to be serving. There is probably not such a laughable organization anywhere else on the planet. Of course, the reason this ridiculous organization cannot be axed is because the Republic of China that exists in Ma’s head includes Mongolia and Tibet.
Another question is whether the OCAC should be abolished or incorporated into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). After all, expatriate affairs are normally handled by diplomats. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) retreated in defeat to Taiwan, it established the OCAC to persuade Chinese people residing overseas to take its side and stop them from leaning toward Beijing. However, times are different now and this organization has become redundant, yet each year it still spends NT$1.56 billion of our national budget.
The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) should also have been absorbed into the MOFA. If we are serious in saying that Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation, then relations between Taiwan and China should be international affairs and matters relating to China should be included in foreign diplomacy. It is true that diplomatic relations with China are extremely complex, so it would be a good idea to establish a special China affairs division within the foreign ministry. This would also be a good way of putting the idea of equality of sovereignty into practice.
The Chinese Cultural Association, originally known as the Chinese Cultural Renaissance Movement Promotion Committee, is another body that could be done away with. While it is a civic group, it still receives money from the National Treasury via the Cabinet. This organization was originally established by dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in 1966 in response to the Cultural Revolution launched by the Chinese Communist Party, and it has Chinese nationalism as its basic theme.
Nowadays, the Beijing government has taken Chinese nationalism to a whole new level, and there is no need for us to echo it from across the Taiwan Strait. The word “Chinese” disappeared from the association’s title during former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) time in office, when it was renamed the National Cultural Association, but at the beginning of this year it quietly changed its name back again. Although the association now promises to promote Taiwanese culture, it does not really need to when the Council for Cultural Affairs is soon to be upgraded to a ministry of culture.
There is another system that has been debated for half a century and should be scrapped, and that is the Ministry of Education’s Department of Military Training Education. This department was established in the 1950s to allow another shadowy outfit, the China Youth Anti--Communist National Salvation Corps, to send military personnel onto campuses to monitor and brainwash young students. Taiwan is now a democracy, yet we still retain this remnant of Taiwan’s past days of authoritarian martial law.
Some people try to rationalize the existence of this department by saying that many military training officers are highly professional and care about their students. The problem with this is that they are confusing the individuals with the system. In ancient times, there were plenty of eunuchs who did a good job, but does that mean that the eunuch system was itself reasonable?
There are others who say that military training officers are now only responsible for keeping peace on campuses and for student counseling and that they no longer monitor or brainwash students. This is a very odd way of thinking. Are we supposed to believe that military training officers are now being used as school police or security guards?
Student counseling is taken care of by student affairs departments and psychological counseling centers in schools. Military personnel are responsible for protecting the nation from its enemies, while the police’s duty is to uphold public security.
These are totally different roles and should not be confused with one another. For a democratic nation to have military staff on its campuses is a black mark for democracy and an insult to the military.
The organizations mentioned here could and should be scrapped or integrated into other government bodies, but Chen did not manage to do so during his eight years in office. He would have done so if he could, but he was prevented because his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) had fewer seats in the legislature than the opposition, among other factors.
No such change will take place under the Ma administration’s “government restructuring” either, but this time it is not because the president cannot make it happen, but because he does not want it to happen. It is his China-centric worldview and authoritarian attitude that are getting in the way. That being the case, we must pin our hopes on DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) winning next year’s presidential election to usher in a different climate.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a professor in the Graduate School of Taiwanese Culture at National Taipei University of Education.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS