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.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS