As the nation marks one year since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) took office, plenty of commentators have been voicing their opinions.
The main concern for most ordinary people are cross-strait relations, economic development, the rights and duties of workers and employers (especially the recently instituted system of “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day” each week), Taiwan’s participation in international organizations and activities, such as the World Health Assembly, interactions between the ruling party and civic groups, pension reform and the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program.
Perceived U-turns on the way policies were presented before Tsai took office and the way they have been implemented since have pushed the president’s opinion poll ratings down. In such circumstances, could it be that examining Tsai’s promotion of policies and affairs related to Aborigines would have a halo effect, in the same way that the moon can extend its hypnotic effect into the surrounding space?
Amis singer Panai Kusui and others have been camping on Ketagalan Boulevard near the Presidential Office Building to protest against the exclusion of privately owned land when delineating traditional Aboriginal territories, and they are calling on the minister of the Council of Indigenous Peoples to resign. However, it would not be fair to infer from this that the “halo effect” extends to Aboriginal affairs.
Examples of things Tsai has done might serve to prove the point. While many Taiwanese, including many officials, do not know why Tsai should apologize to Aborigines, she was nonetheless willing to make an apology that few heads of state anywhere in the world would be willing to make.
She has pledged to formulate legislation on Aboriginal autonomy and put it into practice. She has established the Indigenous Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Committee to handle issues of history, land, language, culture and reconciliation.
She has promised to investigate how, without the consent of Tao Aborigines, a decision was made to build a nuclear waste storage site on Orchid Island (Lanyu, 蘭嶼) despite the harmful effects of these toxic materials, which could last for thousands of years, and has promised compensation to residents.
She has responded to the demands of Pingpu Aborigines, including the Siraya, Makatao, Pazih and Papora, for their rightful names to be officially recognized, and has promised to restore their identity and rights. Her government has taken back the Broadcasting Corp of China’s frequencies so that they can be used by a dedicated Aboriginal radio station.
Her administration is drafting an indigenous language development law, and it is delineating and proclaiming traditional Aboriginal territories on government-owned land.
It is true that some of these items were considered and planned by previous governments, but it is fair to say that the announcements Tsai has made since taking office have lent them considerably more impetus.
Her official apology and her government’s policies of pursuing historical transitional justice, investigating the policy decision on nuclear waste storage, restoring Pingpu titles, reserving a popular radio frequency for an Aboriginal radio station and so on have shaken up the government’s habitual mindset and ways of responding.
It is neither possible nor necessary for the president to intervene in every detail; it is enough for her to set the general course.
As to the issue of delineating traditional lands, which is a topic of great concern to the Aboriginal community, it should indeed be handled at a higher level of legal procedure.
The government should convene public hearings and explanatory meetings on the issue and not proceed with legislation until Aborigines fully understand what it is about, but the president does not need to handle it herself.
However, she has clearly stated that traditional Aboriginal lands existed before the state and that they are therefore unbroken, no matter whether they are owned by private entities or government.
Regrettably, the protesters camping on Ketagalan Boulevard have not shifted their battleground to somewhere more effective.
With regard to the private individuals, corporations and government departments that are the main occupiers of traditional Aboriginal territory, to engage in substantive discourse on historical transitional justice and investigate the original ownership of the land, it would be more effective to “march separately, but strike together” with the Indigenous Justice Committee — a body that does have a grounding in public opinion.
There are two main obstacles to Aboriginal land rights. One is the mindset and standards of government agencies, and the other is corporations and private individuals who occupy traditional Aboriginal lands.
In a democratic environment, government agencies have to do whatever the president says, but private individuals and corporations are sure to resist because they want to hold on to their property.
It would be no easy task for Aborigines to gather privately owned land and turn it into traditional land. The home truths spoken by one minister without portfolio and others reveal where the crux of structural hegemony lies in Taiwanese society.
Tsai has a sincere attitude toward Aborigines and she has promised and wants to do more. This might have something to do with her background.
Aborigines are finally dealing with a head of state who wants to solve problems, so the most important thing is to take advantage of this situation while it is available. Rather than waiting for the next, better policy or environment, it would be better to cherish the moment and work together for a breakthrough.
Pasuya Poiconu is a former deputy minister of the Council of Indigenous Peoples.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath