Taiwan’s democracy has always had its fair share of being labeled “immature.” Yet calling it “chaotic” — which has become a trend among Chinese onlookers and, regrettably, among some Taiwanese — implies a warped view that democracy should be nothing more than casting and tallying votes. An elected government lauding this view and labeling those physically protesting against it as “undemocratic” should ring alarm bells about its reactionary and obscurant nature.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has tapped into this mentality with a TV commercial that says: “Democracy belongs to everybody rather than to those [with] loudspeakers... This is Taiwan; you do not have to bicker to secure a ballot.”
The “loudspeaking” includes that taking place in the virtual world. KMT Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連勝文) has complained that he is being “bullied” by netizens — who are unsurprisingly comprised primarily of the younger generation. Lien was referring to all the snarks and articles bombarding him with mocking, sarcastic comments about his remarks and deeds, his embodiment of “paternal capitalism” and the crony capitalism his family represents in Taiwan and China.
“Just because you do not call other people names on the Internet, you are wrong; because you do not take to the streets, you’re wrong; because you quietly work hard and cannot get hold of the microphone, openness, reasoning and guilelessness became something that is wrong,” the ad’s voiceover says.
It calls on people, or the “silent majority” as the party likes to call them, to use their votes “to quietly speak out loud” on Saturday.
On the same day that the commercial was released, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was confronted at a campaign event for Lien by a group of laid-off freeway toll collectors who were protesting their situation.
They shouted: “[The government] cares only about the election and spares no attention to the workers” at him and other government officials who were on the stage.
After the incident, Ma told the rally — to the supporters’ fervent positive response — that they are against “[the protesters’] violent interference,” “their attitude of self-importance” and disrespect to others, and that the protesters were “interfering with others’ free speech.”
“Just because you speak with a louder voice does not mean you’re right,” Lien said and asked his supporters to “teach them a lesson with votes.”
Taken out of context, these remarks seem undeniably true, but their hypocrisy and preposterousness are self-evident, coming from people who are themselves holding microphones.
For those who were attacked by police when they were trying to make themselves heard, taking to the streets was probably their last resort. Who wants to go through all that toil and trouble if filing a complaint within the government framework was all that needed to be done?
Free public space, such as the streets and the online world, are the only places where the powerless and penniless can afford to make their voices heard.
Having a commercial broadcast on TV, while elegantly “quiet” in the sense that it does not disturb, costs money. So does taking out an ad in a major newspaper. Similarly, getting lawmakers with legislative immunity to spread mudslinging rumors and government agencies to speak in one’s favor — all under the patina of legitimacy so it will not be seen as “bullying” — requires power.
The ones who have the most powerful loudspeakers in their hands are never those who were strangled and threatened by state power with the state apparatus at its disposal, and by the corporations colluding with it.
Democracy is not an institution that can be defined solely by voting, leaving out its inherent imperfections and the need for a vibrant civil society in which social movements and struggles take place.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS