On the whole, the new government so far has not properly handled its relations with religious groups. The new government, especially its upper eschelons, needs the right thinking to develop proper relationships while separating politics from religion. Since President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) took office, he has visited several important religious leaders, each time advocating different values depending on which group is hosting him. On the surface, the moves suggest respect for different religions, but are intended more as efforts to seek alliance and support. As controversy over a "direct religious link" to China for Matsu pilgrims becomes a political wrestling match, the inability of the new government to separate politics from religion has led to a crisis.
The previous KMT government had a bad record in terms of divorcing politics from religion. The party regarded religion as a social resource capable of being manipulated. After martial law ended and Taiwan democratized, the government gradually stopped its suppression of certain religions. The I Kuan Tao (
The new government has not clearly defined their policies toward religious groups. Although Chen presented concrete religious policies in his white paper during the presidential election campaign, his administration has not yet implemented them. If we examine his white paper, we can see the legacy of the KMT regime in its basic concepts. Certain adjustments are needed before they are carried out as official policies.
After Chen's inauguration, he visited several the leaders of various denominations, ranging from Buddhism and Christianity, to I Kuan Tao, as well as Master Miao Tien (妙天). During his visits, Chen quoted the different religious doctrines to interpret government policies and his political philosophy. Religious values preached by our president, however, have varied according to the places he has visited.
Chen once said Taiwan can improve cross-strait relations with Buddhist doctrines. But can't we also do it with the doctrines of other religions? If other religions can help, which religion offers the greatest help? Perhaps we should deal with political issue based on the doctrines of not just one, but several religions? Chen has not realized the need to separate religion from politics as he is too eager to please religious groups. For their part, religious groups have not realized that religion should transcend political matters, as some of their leaders still dream of enjoying political glory.
Religious citizens should have the same rights as those who are not. As current laws prohibit direct links, religious followers should be no exception to these regulations. The direct religious pilgrimage of Matsu has become highly politicized. Its major advocates are actually politicians who claim to represent religious groups. They obviously advocate direct pilgrimage out of political considerations. The fact that legislators supporting the direct pilgrimage are all from the same opposition party reveals that their motives are anything but religious. Some legislators vowed to join the direct pilgrimage, not because they want to be martyrs, but to protest the government's policy.
It is easy for the new government to fall into a political crisis when it cannot see through the nature of such problems. Chen promised during his election campaign to promote the direct pilgrimage. This is a case-in-point to the problems faced by the new administration in making good their pre-election campaign promises, as well as an important lesson for all those to who recklessly make campaign promises.
The new government does not handle religious affairs with clearly defined policies because they have not observed proper restraint. Cabinet members who handle religious affairs, the president, vice president and the premier, should realize the propriety of separating religion from politics and establish the right framework for the relationship.
Chiu Hei-yuan is the director of the Institute of Sociology at the Academia Sinica, and a professor of sociology at National Taiwan University.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has