Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) needs more than the “classes on social skills or diplomatic etiquette” that he said his aides want him to take.
Being a “loose cannon” — as foreign media outlets described him after the diplomatic gaffe over the gift of a watch from British Minister of State for Transport Susan Kramer — or eccentric can be refreshing in politics, where sly remarks and posturing manners are the mainstream, but what is worrying about Ko is more than his faux pas.
People have praised his talent for self-correction and public, no-holds-barred apologies, which are rarely seen in Taiwanese politicians. Insofar as Ko emphasized standard operating procedures and efficiency in administration, it is not difficult to imagine him not being troubled at all by what he probably considers to be mannerisms (while some attribute the characteristics to Asperger syndrome, which Ko himself says he has). However, his recent remarks on colonization being positively related to progress — which left many gasping — has exposed a mentality that embodies Taiwan’s predicament: a lack of a sense of history, and the entailing nonchalance over how people had suffered under past repression.
The colonization talk was not the first shocking remark — in terms of historical consciousness and democratic values — that Ko has made, and it will probably not be the last.
Just days ago, the mayor called the current wiretapping permit application system “a hindrance to investigation” and said police officers should be allowed to “act first, report later.”
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Tuan Yi-kang (段宜康) said the proposal trampled human rights, and said Ko might have regretted that he could not meet former prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) — who was forced out of office after being convicted of charges related to wiretapping Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) — earlier.
While campaigning, Ko said that he held former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) rule in high regard, acclaiming the then-government’s “integrity.” Many, including Tuan, took offense at Ko’s misplaced praise, reminding Ko that the atrocities of the White Terror were not restricted to a single ethnic group or political stance, but affected all Taiwanese.
“The victims were not only those who had been murdered, jailed or forced into exile, but all Taiwanese who were deprived of their rights and had their minds straitjacketed,” Tuan said. “And the more dreadful damage was the domestication and self-hypnosis of Taiwanese, who even now, in a Stockholm syndrome-like manner, hail the pillagers with gratitude for offering us what had in the beginning belonged to us.”
The repression and discrimination exemplified by colonization were similarly unjust in essence, and should not be justified by any “modernization,” which arguably was a side effect of the rule. History shows that colonization cannot be desultorily simplified as causally contributing to “laudable outcomes,” as Ko did.
Ko’s remarks and their implications ironically echo China’s line that economic development and “harmony” trumps democratic self-rule, which Beijing claims is incompatible with “Chinese culture,” as Singapore — a model both the Chinese government and Ko have hailed as an ideal — has shown with its semi-authoritarian rule.
What Ko needs are history and social science classes to familiarize him with the nation’s development as well as its price, and both its modernization and the exploitation it suffered. His lack of knowledge of these issues is also a consequence of state repression during a certain period of this nation’s history.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS