When Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) announced that he was to set up a new political entity, which he named the Taiwan People’s Party, the Chiang Wei-shui Cultural Foundation and descendants of Chiang Wei-shui (蔣渭水), who founded a party of the same name in 1927, objected to Ko’s use of the title. Ko responded by saying the name did not belong to Chiang alone, and that Chiang does not only belong to his descendants.
Ko is a professor and a politician, but he should be given a failing grade for his response in both these roles.
If the Taiwan People’s Party is defined as a public good, then of course Ko has some justification for using its name.
However, Chiang and the name are the historical and cultural assets of every Taiwanese. Consequently, their significance is such that they should more properly be defined as common goods.
Regardless of how they are defined, Ko should not use the name for his party and the Ministry of the Interior has a duty to encourage him to change it.
There is no need to dwell on the precise definitions of public and common goods, but the use of public goods must have the characteristics of non-excludability and non-rivalry.
In plain language, other people can use them later or at the same time. If Ko’s party is officially registered in that name after examination by the Ministry of the Interior, will non-members be allowed to engage in political activities under the same title? Of course not.
So the name more closely fits the definition of a common good, in that if one group uses it, others would not be able to. That is why Ko should not be allowed to call his party the Taiwan People’s Party.
Even in the case of a public good, such as a road or the air, it is only permitted to use them in ways that do not have a negative effect on others.
For example, if someone is driving and feels like resting or checking their cellphone, is it OK for them to exercise their right to use public goods by parking in the middle of the road? Of course not, because that would be harmful to other people’s rights.
By the same logic, when using the air, people must do so in accordance with the law, which forbids causing too much pollution.
When Ko wants to use the names of the Taiwan People’s Party and Chiang, he must respect the rights of the foundation and Chiang’s descendants and avoid infringing upon them. Surely Chiang’s relatives cannot be deprived of their right to demand that a politician should not use the name of their family member as a tool to grab political power.
If Ko wants to carry on in Chiang’s spirit, that is all well and good, but there are other, better ways to do it that Chiang’s descendants could support.
An important part of what he stood for was resisting powerful people, but in establishing his party this week, Ko has been rapacious in the way he has taken the name and responded to Chiang’s descendants. This is completely contrary to the spirit of Chiang.
Mayor Ko, do you really feel at ease about acting that way?
Huang Ci-ru is an assistant professor.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US