The controversy over reducing — or even entirely doing away with — the burning of incense in temples has plunged the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) into a crisis that is unprecedented for the party.
From its inception, and even at the height of its social movement period, the DPP has always led the political discourse in the nation. Whether it be over the debate on direct presidential elections or the construction of Kuokuang Petrochemical’s naphtha cracker, the DPP was standing at the forefront.
Prior to any protest movement, the party headquarters had already availed itself of a good command of the core issue and through this it was able to get public support behind it.
The ability to command discourse paved the way for the ascent of the party. Once a debate had been proposed, the majority of public opinion was on the side of the DPP.
It was a smart strategy, and this, coupled with an aptitude for mobilizing the public, put the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) very much on the back foot.
The DPP’s proclamations gave legitimacy to its policy decisions. The public was willing to listen to what the party had to say, and the party’s guiding principles enabled it to influence the trajectory of public opinion, and thereby decide which way public support would go.
Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was often criticized for his personal style when in office, but any proposals he made were invariably met with the support of large sections of the public. If one cannot get the public on their side through persuasion, they end up forcing the public into an opposing stance.
Indeed, before the DPP rose to power, all the party’s pronouncements or proposed solutions, be it on the historical question of the 228 Incident or on the unjust laws of the Martial Law period, were greeted with a positive reaction by the public.
It is not too strong a statement to say that the DPP had consistently, from its inception all the way through its development, been within the expectations of the public: It did not seem to able to put a foot wrong.
Since the last transition of power — the third since direct elections started — President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has been in office for more than a year. Tsai’s promises of heading a government that “listens” now fall on deaf ears.
This is indeed an unprecedented crisis for the DPP, which is struggling to command legitimacy to what it says, especially when compared with its formative period.
Even Tsai’s most sober pronouncement, issuing a formal, public apology to the Aborigines, was met with precious little enthusiasm by Aborigines.
Then, clearly wanting to address the problem of air pollution in the nation, the Tsai administration called on temples to reduce the amount of incense smoke, and was caught completely off-guard by the reaction from worshipers.
Where did the problem come from? Could it be that the president is completely out of touch with society? Is it because the people responsible for carrying out the policy, on both the central and local government levels, have been protective of their own political interests? Or is it that people in the bureaucracy have too little experience?
It might well be that there is no definitive answer to these questions, but the reality is the Tsai administration is gradually losing the hearts and minds of ordinary Taiwanese.
Some might have been surprised by Tsai’s leadership style. Not for her the humble, accommodating approach that some might have imagined she would have in office; rather like former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, once the decision has been made, this lady is not turning around.
On the campaign trail Tsai had lambasted the government for not listening to ordinary people, but once in the Presidential Office, she seems to have shut herself off from the rest of society.
Perhaps the clearest example of this was when Aboriginal folk icon Panai led a sit-in protest on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei, calling for maintaining Aboriginal traditional territories.
The traditional territories have been cut from 1.8 million hectares to less than half of that. Aborigines clearly want a response from the government on the issue.
However, although Panai has been camped out on Ketagalan Boulevard for more than 150 days now, the government is still refusing to have any dialogue with her, and has not even asked the Council of Indigenous Peoples to contact her about the issue.
Surely, a government that listens would not allow a minor issue such as this to balloon into a major controversy because of communications failure, as it apparently has done in this case.
Formulating political discourse is not about relying on unilateral decisions. Without the approval of the public, without social consensus, things are likely to go wrong pretty quickly.
The Tsai administration has made inadvisable policy choices in a range of issues, from pension reform to the pursuit of the KMT’s illicit assets to the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program.
The past year or so has seen turmoil and unrest throughout the nation.
Now the government has taken yet another misstep and caused temples throughout Taiwan to take up arms.
Political discourse has been a major guiding force ever since civic and social movements have been around. If Tsai and her government lose the ability to control this discourse, they will find themselves bereft of the legitimacy to continue their agenda of political reforms.
Chen Fang-ming is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Taiwanese Literature at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under