Many intellectuals recently voiced their concern that Taiwan's democratic development is moving toward populism. To them, the election was full of political manipulation. Voters' rational judgment was impaired by such decisions as holding a referendum on the day of the presidential election and the shooting incident that occurred on the eve of the election.
They argued that older voters with a lower education level in the south supporting Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) President Chen Shui-bian (
These discourses are interwoven with prejudices -- first, that intellectuals are more sensible than ordinary people and that they are responsible for educating the public; and second, that people can be easily manipulated, especially by the electoral process, which tends to obscure truths. So they believe that voters will make wrong decisions and that the entire process is a matter of populistic manipulation.
Such an assessment contradicts the democratic principle that every vote has the same value. The rationale behind anonymous voting is to respect each voter's decision regardless of financial conditions or intellectual capability.
The difference between intellectuals and ordinary people does not lie in the value of their votes, but in the discourse resources accessible to the former.
Ignoring the value of people making their own decisions, these intellectuals are being arrogant. The new democracy they uphold is in fact elitism, a practice that violates the equality of human rights. If decisions made by voters are judged by external criteria, such as their academic achievements, place of residence or their social or economic status, then what these intellectuals are pursuing is pseudo-democracy.
With pseudo-democracy comes pseudo-science. Typical of pseudo-science is a recent argument stating that the number of invalid votes cast in the presidential election proves vote-rigging. It embodies the arrogance and anti-intellectualism of the intellectuals.
The intellectuals' arrogance was made evident by their efforts to dress their underlying prejudices in a scientific disguise of numbers, statistics and technical terms. Totally ignoring the practical operation of electoral affairs, they simply use their "academic point of view" to accuse tens of thousands of electoral personnel of vote-rigging, which is practically no different from the Inquisition during the Middle Ages.
The intellectuals' anti-intellectualism is made evident by their attempts to cover their political prejudices behind an academic appearance, which is even used to justify their political preferences. Surprisingly, this is the norm in academic circles. Especially for Taiwanese scholars, who are faced with specialist division of labor and whose academic survival is based on churning out papers, there is a difference between the production of academic articles and the ideal of seeking the truth. Instead we find that their academic skills have become effective tools for producing "truths" -- even with faulty logic behind it, academic discovery is always valued higher.
As a matter of fact, the controversies following the presidential election serve as a monster-revealing mirror. It shows us how many practitioners of pseudo-democracy and pseudo-science are hidden under the high hat of true democracy and science.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at the Academia Sinica. Translated by Jennie Shih
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS