From the very outset, the upper echelons of the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation’s management should have clearly defined its core mission: Does it exist to carry out charitable work or to promote religion? If the reason for raising funds from the public is for charitable work, then these donations should not be diverted for the promotion of religion, or used to construct “meditation halls” in every corner of Taiwan.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mother Teresa lived in poverty in service to the poor and never sought to establish a new religious sect. In contrast, the foundation’s founder, Master Cheng Yen (證嚴法師), vigorously promotes her own teachings, leaving one with the impression that she would like to establish herself as the figurehead of a new religious sect, or even to deify herself as the so-called “Great enlightened of the universe.” And although the foundation does not — in principle — conduct business, it has clearly become a capitalist-religious organization.
Kindergarten and elementary schoolchildren who are granted an audience with Master Cheng Yen are asked to kowtow before her; as are journalists when they interview her. Tzu Chi University students must wear a uniform, and both the university and Tzu Chi Hospital’s canteens provide only vegetarian food. All this is a clear violation of the public’s freedom of choice and freedom of religious belief. The foundation seems to have forgotten that it enjoys the protection of religious freedom that is afforded to it under Taiwan’s democratic system, while forcing its own brand of religion on others.
The foundation is not short of members who possess sound democratic principles; indeed they have long since been awake to this problem. One such member — a friend I greatly respect and who previously held a senior post within the foundation — told me that since the foundation’s achievements outweigh its faults, he made a decision to refrain from publicly criticizing the organization.
The foundation’s violations of Taiwanese democratic human rights are steadily getting worse, which led to the recent controversy over land development in Taipei’s Neihu District (內湖). When civic groups and the media spoke up to protect the natural environment, a light was shone upon a plethora of undemocratic and shady financial practices and policies within the foundation. Despite its recent announcement that it will reform the board of directors and bring in independent figures, the public should continue to keep a close watch over the organization.
Many religious groups have established schools in Taiwan. They should avoid running their schools along religious lines and should refrain from using coercive tactics to force employees, students and teachers to join their religion. Religious schools should also avoid adding mandatory classes to the general curriculum that exclusively promote the religion of the school.
The ability to investigate and compare all the religious schools in Taiwan — to determine whether there are cases of interference in the public’s freedoms of speech and to practice religion — would be of immeasurable benefit to the advancement of democracy and human rights. Post-Sunflower movement, this is surely an issue that Taiwanese students should be deliberating.
The Tzu Chi Foundation problem reflects the superstitious nature of Taiwanese — especially the middle-aged and the elderly — and the poisonous legacy of 5,000 years of Chinese feudal culture. Both are the main obstacles to deepening the roots of democracy in Taiwan. Has the Tzu Chi Foundation fallen into this vice?
Andrew Cheng is a professor of psychiatry and former president of the International Federation of Psychiatric Epidemiology.
Translated by Edward Jones
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