The nine-in-one elections next Saturday demonstrate the lamentable state of Taiwan’s democracy: All that is left are elections and elections are only about casting ballots.
The process leaves no room for rational discussion of public affairs and there is no proper approach to such debate, because demonizing the opponent is the easiest way to distinguish friend from foe — it requires only taking sides, without thought or understanding.
Hearing a leading opponent of same-sex marriage say on a televised “platform presentation” that “the vagina is close to sterile, with no bacteria at all,” it is clear that the arguments are built on misconceptions.
On another occasion, an advocate of nuclear power said that solar power panels are toxic, prompting optoelectronic businesses to threaten to sue for spreading misinformation.
Arguments and debates about truth and the facts are the raison d’etre of referendums. However, many proposals do not stand up to scientific or professional scrutiny.
A public referendum platform should present all the information openly and transparently, and voters should express their views after studying the information provided by both sides.
At the end, the votes should determine the winning proposal, which should be used by the government as a reference for policy implementation.
The same is true for such issues as pension reform, energy policy and the independence-unification issue.
Regardless of what preconceived notions they have, people should try to understand and acknowledge the views of their opponents, and try to identify areas where they agree — this is the democratic essence of public forums and civic deliberation.
Without stepping out of one’s comfort zone during these discussions and putting oneself in one’s opponents’ shoes, and without a soft approach to the other side, politics would always remain a divisive pursuit where the other is always wrong.
This only tears society apart and incites division, without any chance for compromise and tolerance.
If we avoid exchanging views and say “let’s not talk about politics,” Taiwan would forever be divided. That would only benefit politicians; there would be no genuine advancement of democracy and the hope for a mature civic society would never be fulfilled.
Almost 20 years after the nation’s first transition of political power, Taiwan has still not been able to establish a positive format for public debate and remains mired in cut-throat competition.
More than a decade ago, I heard a professor of Taiwanese history predict that Taiwan would need 50 years to become a genuinely mature civic society.
Regardless of the basis for this prediction, the progress toward a democratic society over the past 10 years has been difficult.
It has not been an easy road, nor has there been much progress.
The road to true democracy demands that all citizens stay alert, leave their echo chambers and think critically to make rational decisions by striving for a scientific and professional understanding of public policy.
A referendum should not be used as a tool for political mobilization. Rather, we should reserve a space for referendums that transcends political partisanship, and allows rational conversation and debate to run its full course.
There is still a week to election day and we should all give this some serious thought.
Teng Ming-hung is a lecturer at Yilan Community University.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
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
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
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