Whether people realize it or not, their lives are governed not by reality, but by multiple paradigms that reflect and interpret how people feel it should be. These paradigms in turn have multiple levels and play out in different intersecting fields. Some paradigms are assumed and acknowledged, while other subtler ones may go unnoticed until something challenges them and calls them into question.
Take Taiwan, for example, as it enters the Year of the Horse. Taiwanese may or may not be aware of the interplay of two important paradigmatic fields in their lives: the basic paradigms of ideology and religious spirituality. The differences between them point squarely to the basic differences between Taiwan and the country on the other side of the Taiwan Strait: China.
Why is this happening this year? First, Taiwan fought for and holds to the paradigmatic belief that a democratic government is best for society — its democracy may not be perfect, but it is solid and functioning. So it is natural that a major democratic event, namely the seven-in-one local elections on Nov. 29 this year, brings this discussion to the fore. In that election, the mayors, councilors and other officials of municipalities, cities, counties, townships and others are to be chosen.
Who will run? Interest is peaked as major political parties go through the process of selecting their candidates.
However, the elections are also being watched by many as a potential bellwether. They are a bellwether not only because all the key cities are involved, but because the results could reflect the growing unpopularity of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, brought about after six years of incompetence and stagnation. This in turn could impact and influence the 2016 presidential and Legislative Yuan elections.
Many primaries are in process and many contenders have yet to be chosen, but additional questions arise. Do the voters feel that it is time to punish the lackluster performance and failed promises of Ma and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)? Will the Green tide that is creeping north from the south prevail? While the results are up in the air and some candidates are starting to distance themselves from Ma, will he try to impact the 2016 elections by pushing for closer interaction with China?
Contrast Taiwan’s pursuit of a multi-party democratic paradigm with China, where the paradigm held is a one-party state oligarchy masquerading under the guise of communism. In China, there are no basic elections or contesting parties of consequence at levels where it counts. The hands that rule and control the nation are predetermined and from select families. How a person qualifies is worth examining. Disgraced former elite Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official Bo Xilai (薄熙來) tried to crash that group recently, but his pedigree and style did not suit those in charge.
In China, the issue is not communism versus capitalism. The claim to communism is simply a means used by the oligarchy to legitimize their ties to the past overthrow of a past-privileged KMT group, which with its corruption had lost the minds and support of the people. China is not becoming a classless and moneyless society; it is becoming more of the opposite. As the gap between rich and poor continues to grow, it might best be called a socialistic form of capitalism, where a select and minute controlling cabal determines all.
Ironically, in some ways, the politburo that rules China is under greater pressure than the elected Ma government in Taiwan. In China, in order to placate the masses and justify the people’s lack of participation and control, the oligarchs must now maintain a minimal 7.5 percent GDP growth. This means that they must create about 7.5 million jobs in the coming year to keep up with the projected and desired GDP growth. With that pressure, any sincere Chinese leader must in some way look in envy at how the elected Ma government can scrape by even with its continued failing growth numbers and poor performance approval.
To be sure, of course China’s oligarchs are not without other advantages and tools, such as a lack of transparency to hide what is going on in their banks where money often disappears.
Similarly, with state control of the media, they can protect and suppress dissent and questioning of their decisions. This prevails even as outside leaks indicate the large amounts of money that the major ruling families in China are stashing in offshore accounts and other places. Is that what communism is about?
Thus far, people have said little about the second paradigm in question, that of religion and spiritual freedom. A basic difference between Taiwan’s ideological democracy and China’s oligarchy is that of separation of church and state. By its nature, a democracy should not favor any religious belief or church.
However, in China’s oligarchy, the control factor enters in. Any and all religious paradigms must be controlled by the state, and religious leaders must be approved, if not appointed by such. By controlling the appointments of spiritual leaders, the oligarchs hope to control the direction of religions.
The government in Taiwan has avoided crossing into the realm of religious paradigms. It has diplomatic relations with the Vatican and has never tried to appoint Catholic bishops. It has not tried to appoint successors to any Tibetan lamas, though Taiwanese should wonder why it has purposely not invited the Dalai Lama for a visit.
However, the biggest paradigm contrast is seen vis-a-vis the Falun Gong. In China, the oligarchs see the group as a clear threat to the state. Ironically, in Taiwan, where they meet, perform their exercises and develop their path and beliefs, they are totally off the radar. They are not jailed as subversives, nor are their organs harvested as a controlling punishment. They do not represent a paradigm that must be controlled.
It is the value of such contrasting interplay of paradigms that democratic Taiwan, with its many religions and agnostics and atheists, needs to be conscious of as it gets ready to vote this year.
Jerome Keating is a commentator in Taipei.
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