The Legislative Yuan is currently deliberating a draft for a new National Park Law (國家公園法). The proposed reforms are primarily designed to relax existing restrictions and allow hunting, gathering and slash-and-burn agriculture by Aborigines within the boundaries of national parks. Moreover, under the new law, priority would be given to training Aboriginal groups to handle the management of national parks. We fear that these changes will have a major impact on Taiwan's system for protecting our national parks and create an ecological crisis.
The Taiwan Association of University Professors believes that allowing Aborigines to hunt in national parks would be a catastrophe for wild animals for the following reasons:
First, wild animals would lose their last sanctuaries in Taiwan. At present, national parks account for only 8.6 percent of the nation's total area. While these parks are not the only areas where Aborigines can hunt, they are the last sanctuaries for Taiwan's wild animals. Opening the parks to hunting would undoubtedly put severe pressure on the animals.
Most of Taiwan's national parks were founded in the name of conservation and for their natural scenery. In comparison with other places, zoning rules in regard to the parks are very strict for the sake of conservation. Interference from human beings should similarly be even more limited than in other places. In the Cabinet's draft bill, however, the plan is to allow hunting within the parks. This makes a mockery of the so-called "green government."
Second, poaching is common in Taiwan's mountainous areas, and it is primarily done for profit, not for cultural reasons.
In famous national parks abroad, wild animals such as deer and bears can frequently be seen. This has become a special sort of travel experience.
By contrast, in Taiwan it is very rare that anyone gets an opportunity to see large wild animals in their natural habitat. Most employees of national parks have almost never seen any large wild animals, other than rhesus monkeys. Only those who have been very lucky have done so. Needless to say, there is even less chance of spotting wild animals beyond the limits of the national parks.
Although Taiwan's Wild Animal Protection Law (野生動物保育法) was enacted long ago, shops selling "mountain produce" abound in the nation's mountainous regions. Poaching is widespread. The poachers include both Aborigines and non-Aborigines and their aim is not to protect traditional Aboriginal culture, but rather to benefit themselves. So far, the government has been unable to stop poaching or the sale of wild animals by these shops. If restrictions on hunting are further relaxed, it will be tantamount to putting the last straw on the camel's back.
Third, hunting by Aborigines has long been "non-traditional." Aboriginal hunting practices have changed with improvements in technology and marketing tools as well as the failure to pass on traditions. Hunting today is mostly done by picking up a gun or setting traps and snares of all sorts in the forest. This kind of hunting takes place in all seasons and kills animals regardless of their sex, age or species. How can this be called "traditional"?
If the rationale for permitting hunting is to preserve traditional culture, shouldn't the use of traditional tools also be required, in order to bring back hunting in its traditional form and the fair competition that that implies between the Aborigines and their prey?
Fourth, the proposed law could open the door to "hunting tourism." Given that traditional Aboriginal festivals have become tourist-oriented, hunting based on traditional culture and customs also has economic potential as a tourist attraction and it would be impossible to keep the two completely separate. At present, many people are eager to try to develop "hunting tourism." One can quite easily imagine that, given current levels of economic disadvantage among Aborigines, the "economic space" created by the proposed law would obviously be even more attractive to people than the "cultural space" that it would create.
We can foresee that in the future, during traditional festivals, our national parks will be filled with lowlanders on hunting trips with Aborigines, pursuing "traditional culture and customs" and incorporating "eco-tourism" or "cultural tourism," as well as the taste of fresh, wild game. For this reason, if the national park law doesn't regulate such behavior strictly, then in the future, profiteering in the name of preserving traditions will become rampant in our national parks.
We therefore suggest that out of respect for traditional Aboriginal culture, we plan for Aborigines to establish symbolic hunting ceremonies and open them to tourists. It would be inappropriate, however, to open the national parks to Aborigines to hunt freely.
Fifth, the national parks are not a factor in the demise of Aboriginal culture. Certainly, the Aborigines have precious cultural traditions that should be given greater attention. Any cultural tradition, however, must make adjustments to suit changes in space and time. Few traditions remain unchanged. Moreover, there is not necessarily any causal link between the establishment of national parks and the demise of Aboriginal culture. On Orchid Island, for example, although there is no national park, conditions have deteriorated rapidly in recent years, in terms of both cultural traditions and living environment. This is also the case in other Aboriginal villages outside of national park areas.
Amending the national park law to allow hunting and thereby provide an opportunity for traditional Aboriginal culture to survive is therefore a highly dubious proposition. The total area covered by Taiwan's national parks is less than 8.6 percent of the island of Taiwan. Opening up these areas for hunting won't solve the Aborigines' problems.
We believe that the government should use every viable measure to alleviate the difficult living conditions of the Aborigines and to preserve Aboriginal culture. The national parks, however, must not be opened for hunting.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS